You make a compelling case in certain ways and I will need to research further to argue against it but at this stage I believe in dinosaurs.
A question: doesn't the fact that fakery keeps getting pointed out by those in the field themselves imply there must be real dinosaurs? In the virology world they all go along with viruses they're n…
You make a compelling case in certain ways and I will need to research further to argue against it but at this stage I believe in dinosaurs.
A question: doesn't the fact that fakery keeps getting pointed out by those in the field themselves imply there must be real dinosaurs? In the virology world they all go along with viruses they're not saying, "Hey that's a real virus but that one's not," or at least not AFAIK. How can there only be fake dinosaurs if so much fakery is called out? What makes something "fake accepted as real" and another "fake recognised as fake"?
The dinosaur world reminds me of the art world - loads of shenanigans. The thing is despite the fakery in the art world we still accept that there is art created by the artists said to have created the art, we know it's not ALL fake, that would make no sense. I think the same applies to dinosaurs.
I think what emerges is that there are hoaxes within the dinosaur world - gobsmacking ones - but dinosaurs as a phenomenon are not a hoax.
1. Humanity has been digging the ground for millennia, why are there no excavated dino fossils, skulls, etc in these ruins or even buildings or writings of the last few thousand years before the 1800s?
2. If there were dinos, they would be happy to show detailed step by step finding of all these huge skulls and bones. Where are they? They show small indirect and inferred photos of people digging, some rock formations, parts of bones that can be from any animal, some like rinos, elephants, giraffes etc are pretty big.
👉It seems like virology uses the same recipe, add hype to inferred and indirect information, monetary incentive, put it in text books, add the vague photos and sketches, make it too complex for people to see the hidden truths, and people will believe anything.
👉There is always some plausible truth, there are lizards, some quite large and dangerous. There are small organisms all over the place. There are things, lights, animals and objects in the sky, now complex flying objects, lights, holograms. Just take these one small step further and you can make up anything if you run the media, education system, and government. Orson Wells proved this quite clearly.
👉Personally I am not against Dinos, viruses, or UFOs, only the onus is on the claimants to provide incontrovertible and reproducible direct proof.
I have to say, PM, that I'm not a great one for unanswered questions, especially as I have a friend who's wishy-washy on psyops who's always laying them down as if they are some kind of trump card. She always pipes up with, "What's the motive?" and "What island did the dead people go to?" Drives me absolutely nuts. The evidence is there, we don't need a motive (a motive isn't evidence in any case) and I don't know what happened to the people but again ... the evidence is there! Of course, there will be a motive which we can probably work out but we don't need it.
I'm not bothered about unanswered questions unless, of course, the answer is required for proof of something, obviously. I go by the Sherlock Holmes quote: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
In another comment on this series I spoke about what I call "the Shylock problem" which we might put another way as: if you take X you must also take Y or if you exclude X you must also exclude Y.
1. Pre-1800s were fossils of animals that allegedly co-existed with dinosaurs not found or were they found but not dinosaur bones? What do you know about the finding of fossils of animals allegedly co-existing with dinosaurs? Do you accept the alleged existence of the animals who co-existed but just not the existence of dinosaurs?
--- Were dinosaur fossils really not found or were they simply interpreted differently? Could the myth of the Chinese dragon not be so mythical after all and could it originate from massive dinosaur bones found in China?
--- Do you reject all the 700 species or so of alleged dinosaurs ranging from a few pounds to the estimated 77-tonne Argentinosaurus (https://youtu.be/TiyPm7IoQP4?si=2lRy4uqXJUewjjHq&t=327) or if not all where do you draw the line ... ?
2. I would say that this is a very convincing and reasonably detailed step-by-step excavation of triceratops, Alice, in North Dakota in 2019. Also, the film Dinosaur 13 shows the excavation of the T-Rex, Sue, which looked pretty convincing to me when I watched it.
--- Excavating her bones from the soil after removal - Playlist Parts 1-5 - note the skull is not finally removed from the matrix (the matter surrounding it) nevertheless it is intriguing watching the process although we cannot be sure there really is a skull there https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcjGtugrarAPUFPz2k-Nrg2WmnKlCjjYC&si=4EEsVy7CJdlJiXIN
Petra, my hats off to you because what you have proven is that you are a trucker when it comes to investigation. Really impressive. Now, you know I come from a position of skepticism and try to work to truth, and I don’t have any way to disprove dinos, same as viros, only I can say, THEY havn’t yet proven them. So,
The Argentine vid makes some guess statements as facts. The biggest problem as I said is since this, and other, places are full of dinos, why weren’t they found in the hundreds of years prior, anywhere? You saw the incredible and very ancient temples carved out of stone in India in Dino part 1 (I think)-one is of a very complex sundial. People 2,000 years ago were not simpletons. Where are the dinos?
Didn’t they dig to their heart’s content around the Nile for thousands of years, they didn’t find one dino but they find thousands the last 100 yrs? The Egyptians were not dunce-heads when it came to digging quarries and moving large stones around.
3. The vid mostly show artistic pics. The one spine at the start seems too intact to me, it should be in serious decay and broken in many places. In fact, it should be completely fossilized in stone after those mil of years, there should be no bones, just like trees, petrified.
4. The bones shown, are not open to public scrutiny, chemical content analysis, possible dating (though C14 is not a good test), etc.
5. They go to great lengths to reify phylogeny, behavior (who was eating who really?), etc but they really have no proof, so this is guesswork. If there are so many dinos we can know who ate who, why didn’t our dumb-ass ancestors in the last thousand years find any? Even in the 1st century the Egyptians had invented a steam powered device, but no dino finding? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_steam_engine
They were not idiots, just they did not need to make up stories to discredit evolution, nor to prove scarcity of oil with "fossil fuel" garbage.
I’ve always also wondered about the physiology impossibilities of dinos, here
They have to make so many guesses how the blood got around, what about the guess that there are no dinos, only some bones of…? Sorry that’s not on the guess list.
from Colorado-it looks like a mastodon or elephant to me, the story though is about North Dakota, the photo of the student looking like a petrified tree trunk to me. The SAME STUDENT also found ANOTHER one the year before! Wow, and in thousands of years of humans digging the globe, and American Indians who know that land very well, never found anything! Whew…Again, we need these things open to full public inspection and characterization, otherwise we are no further in science than reading about the Roswell UFO crash and seeing a grainy photo. These things do not make me move toward any proof of Dinos, in fact the opposite.
My apologies, PM. I put the 5-part series of triceratops, Alice, assuming that by the end we'd see the cleaned skull but we don't. In fact, there are no images of the cleaned skull anywhere. I'm simply infuriated. That would have been the perfect footage to show excavation of a dinosaur from go to whoa but no final skull? WTF? Also, the channel didn't make the series a playlist which I ended up doing myself in case anyone wanted to watch it ... but then there's no final clean skull, she's still buried under "matrix" (the stuff around the bones) so I'll edit my comment to say that.
In my opinion, the most important thing with regard to dinosaurs is the clear visual evidence of fossils that fits the creatures nominated. If there's clear visual evidence that's enough for me but fair enough if it isn't enough for others, it's all I need.
Argentisaurus video
1. With regard to the fake dinosaur at 28:20 I'm not sure why you think it discredits the video - it's not actually saying that that's a real dinosaur skeleton - it's completely irrelevant to the topic and it's hard to see why it was included.
3. Even if the images are mostly artistic there are still clear images of the A. bones which to me look genuine ... and they're huge.
Either the bones are fake or genuine, right? This is not like virology where they fudge everything, this would be very, very deliberate fakery ... and I don't see it - which isn't say it didn't happen on this occasion but then we have to assume that they're faked every single time by all different people for all different animals. Also, if they're going to fake these bones why not fake a few more to make it a little more convincing? If they're faking it they're faking only the barest minimum to justify the massive animal they extrapolate from those bones.
4. I wouldn't really expect the bones to be open to the public, we can't touch valuable artworks either.
5. True - but we can only expect a lot of guesswork - and we see all along that they change their minds about animals and no doubt there are ongoing arguments about them.
Here is another 5-min video where David Attenborough is on a dig at the Tanis site in North Dakota where a paleontologist uncovers the leg of what an expert in England determines is probably an example of Ornithischian dinosaur, the Thescelosaur.
Looks 100% real to me and that's what I judge on. I'm simply not the kind of person who worries about questions I don't have the answer to if what I see before me is convincing and where the alternative hypothesis would involve numerous people travelling miles into hostile environments and very, very consciously being part of deliberate fakery. Yes, there's thousands? of virologists and vaccinologists all onboard with that hoax but we can see how the propaganda wheels are in place to allow that perpetuation. It's not the same with dinosaurs.
However - as you know, PM - I always keep an open mind :) and I will go over Agent's series more carefully.
Something to think about, its not my specialty, but I would think that any bones > 65 mil yrs olf would be completely destroyed beyond recognition, maybe ossified and fused with their surrounding in the right conditions, or just leaving fossilized imprints like all the shell fish we can find. These things that look like bones to me have to be fake or of much more recent animals. Just musing.
My identical twin, who doesn't believe in dinosaurs or the moon landings, did waaay better in maths and science at school than I did. Both of us are equally prepared to disbelieve the authorities but we still manage to massively disagree and despite the fact that I recognise her superior abilities I still think she's wrong. What I think works against her credibility from the outset is that she simply can't engage in civil discussion - she immediately resorts to derision and scoffing and an attitude of, "This is too stupid for me to even discuss."
Her approach to determining the truth is to work with "what she knows" combined with "what makes sense to her" whereas mine is "gimme the evidence and if I can't work out how this or that happened I don't care as long as the purported evidence is convincing." I think my way is better, of course, otherwise I'd use a different one! I'm not fond of the method of thinking, "this should / would / must be / must have" reckoning and then airily waving away purported evidence with "could be faked". Oh how I've come to detest that phrase.
What my sister really means is "could be faked without detection" but that's a claim that often has no evidence to support it. Faking something so that the fakery is undetectable is a completely different thing from merely faking something. When you give irrefutable facts highest priority I think you're much more likely to get to the truth than when you try to work things out according to your current font of knowledge which, generally, is going to be lacking to some degree.
There are irrefutable artefacts showing people in remote locations brushing away dirt from what convincingly looks like dinosaur fossils with zero hint of fakery. This is extremely potent evidence in my opinion and I do not see evidence that compellingly contradicts the existence of dinosaurs at this point, however ... open mind as always.
Too bad about sis, even all of us, people need to try to like each other even though no one can agree on everything. On, "brushing away dirt from what convincingly looks like dinosaur fossils", the next step has to be confirmation, CT scan, isotope and chemical analysis, what anatomic morphology is clearly present, what is is around the fossil, are there doubts/could it be something else, etc (like the Colorado find to me looked like a Mastadon).... And while I've become a "semi-expert" (whatever that means) in evaluating virus finding papers, I admit I am just applying similar logic to these bones and I am not an expert. Hope all is well Petra!
Here's a substack by a guy who obviously knows a lot about paleontology and it's fascinating. He's retired it in favour of a fiction substack but obviously you can still read the posts on this stack that tend to focus on paleontology including dinosaurs. (I emailed one of the guys involved in the Alice triceratops and asked what happened to it. What a mystery!)
I guess you do whatever you think needs doing for your satisfaction but if something's real then the subject has more intrinsic interest than if it's fake. In the case of viruses, the interest is simply in determining how they've managed to fool everyone whereas assuming dinosaurs are real there will be so much to learn about them. When I started looking at the moon landings I was just interested in real or fake but then I got interested in the subject for its own sake ... because there was a real subject to get interested in! Imagine if viruses were real - that would be so interesting.
All is OK, PM, just tired of all the psyops like the Bondi Junction one yesterday. I hate the way you can't just say to a friend (although there's a couple I can say it to), "Oh another one!" without them rubbishing you. My sister was called by a friend in Italy concerned about her safety (what a joke!) while she was in the car with another friend and the other friend got quite annoyed with my sister when she was very blase about it because she thought it was the usual BS even without paying it the slightest attention.
They haven't had to start denouncing "some" viruses because we haven't got near being a threat to the narrative yet - electron microscopes not being something for which there is a domestic appliance equivalent. We may think that they've made it pretty clear they are clueless about the make-up of this last virus but that's not the way it has played out in the real world. Even some people who think there never was a pandemic think that science proved its value by being able to poison 3 or 4 billion people in one operation. They do also have this get-out clause about whether an infection is bacterial or viral so they are all ready to go when they do have to back away from a given virus.
You can have disagreements in legitimate fields of study. What I have found tends to happen is that the status quo is maintained by the bulk of those who have been educated by the system, and the majority of these are more plodders than free thinkers so don't dare to stray too far from their meal ticket. And they can hold this position, usually in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, for decades at a time. You probably need at least one whole education cycle to even move the entrenched opinions, let alone **re**move them.
As for the Art World, I suspect money laundering can explain the whole of it - and explain why every actual artist you know is as poor as a church mouse. Certainly every time I see something selling for xxx millions of dollars I think "Someone is being paid.".
One thing I didn't make very clear, writing as I was in the early hours when I should have been sleeping, was the messaging pathway for the very young. Dinosaurs are presented as fact, yes, but establishing this "truth" early on in life teaches "trust the science", reinforced by the parents' acceptance of it, and placing the account where it can later stand in direct competition with the biblical account, which is often presented as not trustworthy.
I don't advocate for blind trust in anything. Both accounts call for critical examination, which in turn calls for learning to think critically.
The existence of fakery of course doesn't preclude the possibility of non-fakes. There are other aspects to this problem, however, that Agent131711 doesn't go into in depth (that I know of). Dinosaurs are part of Big Science with its history for centuries now of promoting the notion, without sound evidence, that we "somehow" came into being by chance and were not in fact designed and created. They are a tool for teaching children, from infancy, this made-up story of where we came from.
There are so many problems with that, and yet a great many people have accepted it as unquestionable fact and fashioned their lives around it, whatever they might think about dinosaurs. That is the deeper issue, and the deeper deception.
I still believe in dinosaurs and the hoax within the world but fossil fuels I think is alot of baloney
However I am VERY much sold on the concept of pole shifting and magnetic field catastrophes wiping out most life on earth. The more I learn the more it makes sense and the Bible stories make more sense.
Thanks very much but I find the you tube channel Suspicious Observers to have much greater scientific detail. I’ve read a number of books as well. I don’t think it’s coming in the next twenty years but it’s soon. Climate Change is the grift for wealth and control but there is far too much evidence that matches up for me. There was never continental drift that we were taught as kids but cataclysm. Too many world leaders have been caught making quick trips to Antarctica as there is something there and I don’t think it’s aliens but proof of an ancient civilization that could have only existed in warmer climate.
and the data I have on volcanoes and quakes is just about the best you can get and they are not more frequent, unless it's faked. Reese is stating they are more frequent but he is a clear elite propaganda agent working with AJ to scare us with as much as they can, and I debunked Op Nanook, so finding opposite data must be the correct data. Take care.
and you can see the Wiki ref on pole reversals, its here
Cande, S.C., and D.V. Kent, Revised calibration of the geomagnetic polarity timescale for the late Cretaceous and Cenozoic, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 6,093-6,095, 1995.
Most people can't understand this level of detail so the fear mongers don't care if it is correct, they can manipulate 70% of the population by news, TV and SM.
Dinosaurs are a hoax... it was laid out perfectly in this series... so unless you have 100% proof that dinosaurs are real, you are just living a lie... PROVE YOUR CLAIM!!!
I don't have proof but this is not like virology where we can see how they can fudge it, all dinosaur paleontologists would have to be very consciously lying and I find that very hard to believe ... and I don't see that there's proof they don't exist. I have an open mind on the subject at this point.
and negatives cannot be proven... that's like saying, "prove pink unicorns don't exist"... it cannot be done... the proof of the lie was laid out in this series... if you beLIEve differently, then the burden of proof is on YOU to prove dinosaurs exist.
NO, they don't have to be consciously lying... Paleontologists follow what they were indoctrinated with in school (just like Virologists)... they have no clue they've been lied to and continue the lie without knowledge (just like Virologists)... but since you have zero proof of claim, i'll chalk it up to conjecture and speculation but obviously there is NO proof of dinosaurs anywhere (just like viruses)...
I'm afraid I disagree. They go into deserts and dig up fossilised bones that can be put together to form the skeletons of dinosaurs. I think they need to be lying if they're not actually doing that. So far, however, I have not seen a purported real dinosaur skeleton. When I see one (and I have to allow fakery of course) that would be something.
The guy spends 70 hours researching and writing and you come in and regurgitate the mainstream nonsense, provide ZERO proof of claim, and you beLIEve that that somehow proves dinosaurs are real... un-fucking-believable!!!
Prove the bones are for dinosaurs... did you even read this series??? He explains its bullshit... but burden of proof is on you. They dont even find complete skeletons and make shit up as they go along... PROVE YOUR CLAIM.
You make a compelling case in certain ways and I will need to research further to argue against it but at this stage I believe in dinosaurs.
A question: doesn't the fact that fakery keeps getting pointed out by those in the field themselves imply there must be real dinosaurs? In the virology world they all go along with viruses they're not saying, "Hey that's a real virus but that one's not," or at least not AFAIK. How can there only be fake dinosaurs if so much fakery is called out? What makes something "fake accepted as real" and another "fake recognised as fake"?
The dinosaur world reminds me of the art world - loads of shenanigans. The thing is despite the fakery in the art world we still accept that there is art created by the artists said to have created the art, we know it's not ALL fake, that would make no sense. I think the same applies to dinosaurs.
I think what emerges is that there are hoaxes within the dinosaur world - gobsmacking ones - but dinosaurs as a phenomenon are not a hoax.
Hi Petra, we would have to answer many questions:
1. Humanity has been digging the ground for millennia, why are there no excavated dino fossils, skulls, etc in these ruins or even buildings or writings of the last few thousand years before the 1800s?
2. If there were dinos, they would be happy to show detailed step by step finding of all these huge skulls and bones. Where are they? They show small indirect and inferred photos of people digging, some rock formations, parts of bones that can be from any animal, some like rinos, elephants, giraffes etc are pretty big.
👉It seems like virology uses the same recipe, add hype to inferred and indirect information, monetary incentive, put it in text books, add the vague photos and sketches, make it too complex for people to see the hidden truths, and people will believe anything.
👉There is always some plausible truth, there are lizards, some quite large and dangerous. There are small organisms all over the place. There are things, lights, animals and objects in the sky, now complex flying objects, lights, holograms. Just take these one small step further and you can make up anything if you run the media, education system, and government. Orson Wells proved this quite clearly.
👉Personally I am not against Dinos, viruses, or UFOs, only the onus is on the claimants to provide incontrovertible and reproducible direct proof.
I have to say, PM, that I'm not a great one for unanswered questions, especially as I have a friend who's wishy-washy on psyops who's always laying them down as if they are some kind of trump card. She always pipes up with, "What's the motive?" and "What island did the dead people go to?" Drives me absolutely nuts. The evidence is there, we don't need a motive (a motive isn't evidence in any case) and I don't know what happened to the people but again ... the evidence is there! Of course, there will be a motive which we can probably work out but we don't need it.
I'm not bothered about unanswered questions unless, of course, the answer is required for proof of something, obviously. I go by the Sherlock Holmes quote: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
In another comment on this series I spoke about what I call "the Shylock problem" which we might put another way as: if you take X you must also take Y or if you exclude X you must also exclude Y.
1. Pre-1800s were fossils of animals that allegedly co-existed with dinosaurs not found or were they found but not dinosaur bones? What do you know about the finding of fossils of animals allegedly co-existing with dinosaurs? Do you accept the alleged existence of the animals who co-existed but just not the existence of dinosaurs?
--- Were dinosaur fossils really not found or were they simply interpreted differently? Could the myth of the Chinese dragon not be so mythical after all and could it originate from massive dinosaur bones found in China?
--- Do you reject all the 700 species or so of alleged dinosaurs ranging from a few pounds to the estimated 77-tonne Argentinosaurus (https://youtu.be/TiyPm7IoQP4?si=2lRy4uqXJUewjjHq&t=327) or if not all where do you draw the line ... ?
2. I would say that this is a very convincing and reasonably detailed step-by-step excavation of triceratops, Alice, in North Dakota in 2019. Also, the film Dinosaur 13 shows the excavation of the T-Rex, Sue, which looked pretty convincing to me when I watched it.
--- Alice, the triceratops, in situ - https://www.9news.com.au/world/triceratops-dinosaur-skull-from-cretaceous-period-found-in-palaeontology-dig-by-college-student-in-north-dakota/9f853dca-975b-4133-a2ed-7dea1ccaf7ac
--- Alice's bones covered in plaster jackets for removal - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdOrwiqH3-Q
--- Excavating her bones from the soil after removal - Playlist Parts 1-5 - note the skull is not finally removed from the matrix (the matter surrounding it) nevertheless it is intriguing watching the process although we cannot be sure there really is a skull there https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcjGtugrarAPUFPz2k-Nrg2WmnKlCjjYC&si=4EEsVy7CJdlJiXIN
Petra, my hats off to you because what you have proven is that you are a trucker when it comes to investigation. Really impressive. Now, you know I come from a position of skepticism and try to work to truth, and I don’t have any way to disprove dinos, same as viros, only I can say, THEY havn’t yet proven them. So,
The Argentine vid makes some guess statements as facts. The biggest problem as I said is since this, and other, places are full of dinos, why weren’t they found in the hundreds of years prior, anywhere? You saw the incredible and very ancient temples carved out of stone in India in Dino part 1 (I think)-one is of a very complex sundial. People 2,000 years ago were not simpletons. Where are the dinos?
Didn’t they dig to their heart’s content around the Nile for thousands of years, they didn’t find one dino but they find thousands the last 100 yrs? The Egyptians were not dunce-heads when it came to digging quarries and moving large stones around.
https://egyptiangeographic.com/en/news/show/615
See the Argentine vid
https://youtu.be/TiyPm7IoQP4?si=2lRy4uqXJUewjjHq&t=327
at 30:05, the "Nile was full of Dinos". Oh, really? Tell the Pharohs that.
1. What is the obviously BS photo at 28:20? This discredits the entire video.
2. The narrator says, “Carcasses were found”, in the vid someplace well that could just be a syntax mistake
https://wikidiff.com/skeleton/carcass
3. The vid mostly show artistic pics. The one spine at the start seems too intact to me, it should be in serious decay and broken in many places. In fact, it should be completely fossilized in stone after those mil of years, there should be no bones, just like trees, petrified.
4. The bones shown, are not open to public scrutiny, chemical content analysis, possible dating (though C14 is not a good test), etc.
5. They go to great lengths to reify phylogeny, behavior (who was eating who really?), etc but they really have no proof, so this is guesswork. If there are so many dinos we can know who ate who, why didn’t our dumb-ass ancestors in the last thousand years find any? Even in the 1st century the Egyptians had invented a steam powered device, but no dino finding? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_steam_engine
They were not idiots, just they did not need to make up stories to discredit evolution, nor to prove scarcity of oil with "fossil fuel" garbage.
I’ve always also wondered about the physiology impossibilities of dinos, here
https://www.brainfacts.org/Brain-Anatomy-and-Function/Body-Systems/2016/Neuroscience-Explains-Why-Dinosaurs-Couldnt-Get-Any-Bigger
They have to make so many guesses how the blood got around, what about the guess that there are no dinos, only some bones of…? Sorry that’s not on the guess list.
The Triceratops link shows some bones
https://www.9news.com.au/world/triceratops-dinosaur-skull-from-cretaceous-period-found-in-palaeontology-dig-by-college-student-in-north-dakota/9f853dca-975b-4133-a2ed-7dea1ccaf7ac
from Colorado-it looks like a mastodon or elephant to me, the story though is about North Dakota, the photo of the student looking like a petrified tree trunk to me. The SAME STUDENT also found ANOTHER one the year before! Wow, and in thousands of years of humans digging the globe, and American Indians who know that land very well, never found anything! Whew…Again, we need these things open to full public inspection and characterization, otherwise we are no further in science than reading about the Roswell UFO crash and seeing a grainy photo. These things do not make me move toward any proof of Dinos, in fact the opposite.
My apologies, PM. I put the 5-part series of triceratops, Alice, assuming that by the end we'd see the cleaned skull but we don't. In fact, there are no images of the cleaned skull anywhere. I'm simply infuriated. That would have been the perfect footage to show excavation of a dinosaur from go to whoa but no final skull? WTF? Also, the channel didn't make the series a playlist which I ended up doing myself in case anyone wanted to watch it ... but then there's no final clean skull, she's still buried under "matrix" (the stuff around the bones) so I'll edit my comment to say that.
In my opinion, the most important thing with regard to dinosaurs is the clear visual evidence of fossils that fits the creatures nominated. If there's clear visual evidence that's enough for me but fair enough if it isn't enough for others, it's all I need.
Argentisaurus video
1. With regard to the fake dinosaur at 28:20 I'm not sure why you think it discredits the video - it's not actually saying that that's a real dinosaur skeleton - it's completely irrelevant to the topic and it's hard to see why it was included.
3. Even if the images are mostly artistic there are still clear images of the A. bones which to me look genuine ... and they're huge.
Either the bones are fake or genuine, right? This is not like virology where they fudge everything, this would be very, very deliberate fakery ... and I don't see it - which isn't say it didn't happen on this occasion but then we have to assume that they're faked every single time by all different people for all different animals. Also, if they're going to fake these bones why not fake a few more to make it a little more convincing? If they're faking it they're faking only the barest minimum to justify the massive animal they extrapolate from those bones.
4. I wouldn't really expect the bones to be open to the public, we can't touch valuable artworks either.
5. True - but we can only expect a lot of guesswork - and we see all along that they change their minds about animals and no doubt there are ongoing arguments about them.
Here is another 5-min video where David Attenborough is on a dig at the Tanis site in North Dakota where a paleontologist uncovers the leg of what an expert in England determines is probably an example of Ornithischian dinosaur, the Thescelosaur.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XcxKTXmWFY
Looks 100% real to me and that's what I judge on. I'm simply not the kind of person who worries about questions I don't have the answer to if what I see before me is convincing and where the alternative hypothesis would involve numerous people travelling miles into hostile environments and very, very consciously being part of deliberate fakery. Yes, there's thousands? of virologists and vaccinologists all onboard with that hoax but we can see how the propaganda wheels are in place to allow that perpetuation. It's not the same with dinosaurs.
However - as you know, PM - I always keep an open mind :) and I will go over Agent's series more carefully.
Thanks and we will keep in touch as usual 💕 I will put out a funny post soon, maybe today?
Look forward to it.
Something to think about, its not my specialty, but I would think that any bones > 65 mil yrs olf would be completely destroyed beyond recognition, maybe ossified and fused with their surrounding in the right conditions, or just leaving fossilized imprints like all the shell fish we can find. These things that look like bones to me have to be fake or of much more recent animals. Just musing.
My identical twin, who doesn't believe in dinosaurs or the moon landings, did waaay better in maths and science at school than I did. Both of us are equally prepared to disbelieve the authorities but we still manage to massively disagree and despite the fact that I recognise her superior abilities I still think she's wrong. What I think works against her credibility from the outset is that she simply can't engage in civil discussion - she immediately resorts to derision and scoffing and an attitude of, "This is too stupid for me to even discuss."
Her approach to determining the truth is to work with "what she knows" combined with "what makes sense to her" whereas mine is "gimme the evidence and if I can't work out how this or that happened I don't care as long as the purported evidence is convincing." I think my way is better, of course, otherwise I'd use a different one! I'm not fond of the method of thinking, "this should / would / must be / must have" reckoning and then airily waving away purported evidence with "could be faked". Oh how I've come to detest that phrase.
What my sister really means is "could be faked without detection" but that's a claim that often has no evidence to support it. Faking something so that the fakery is undetectable is a completely different thing from merely faking something. When you give irrefutable facts highest priority I think you're much more likely to get to the truth than when you try to work things out according to your current font of knowledge which, generally, is going to be lacking to some degree.
There are irrefutable artefacts showing people in remote locations brushing away dirt from what convincingly looks like dinosaur fossils with zero hint of fakery. This is extremely potent evidence in my opinion and I do not see evidence that compellingly contradicts the existence of dinosaurs at this point, however ... open mind as always.
Too bad about sis, even all of us, people need to try to like each other even though no one can agree on everything. On, "brushing away dirt from what convincingly looks like dinosaur fossils", the next step has to be confirmation, CT scan, isotope and chemical analysis, what anatomic morphology is clearly present, what is is around the fossil, are there doubts/could it be something else, etc (like the Colorado find to me looked like a Mastadon).... And while I've become a "semi-expert" (whatever that means) in evaluating virus finding papers, I admit I am just applying similar logic to these bones and I am not an expert. Hope all is well Petra!
Here's a substack by a guy who obviously knows a lot about paleontology and it's fascinating. He's retired it in favour of a fiction substack but obviously you can still read the posts on this stack that tend to focus on paleontology including dinosaurs. (I emailed one of the guys involved in the Alice triceratops and asked what happened to it. What a mystery!)
https://mell0wbr1ckroad.substack.com/
I guess you do whatever you think needs doing for your satisfaction but if something's real then the subject has more intrinsic interest than if it's fake. In the case of viruses, the interest is simply in determining how they've managed to fool everyone whereas assuming dinosaurs are real there will be so much to learn about them. When I started looking at the moon landings I was just interested in real or fake but then I got interested in the subject for its own sake ... because there was a real subject to get interested in! Imagine if viruses were real - that would be so interesting.
All is OK, PM, just tired of all the psyops like the Bondi Junction one yesterday. I hate the way you can't just say to a friend (although there's a couple I can say it to), "Oh another one!" without them rubbishing you. My sister was called by a friend in Italy concerned about her safety (what a joke!) while she was in the car with another friend and the other friend got quite annoyed with my sister when she was very blase about it because she thought it was the usual BS even without paying it the slightest attention.
They haven't had to start denouncing "some" viruses because we haven't got near being a threat to the narrative yet - electron microscopes not being something for which there is a domestic appliance equivalent. We may think that they've made it pretty clear they are clueless about the make-up of this last virus but that's not the way it has played out in the real world. Even some people who think there never was a pandemic think that science proved its value by being able to poison 3 or 4 billion people in one operation. They do also have this get-out clause about whether an infection is bacterial or viral so they are all ready to go when they do have to back away from a given virus.
You can have disagreements in legitimate fields of study. What I have found tends to happen is that the status quo is maintained by the bulk of those who have been educated by the system, and the majority of these are more plodders than free thinkers so don't dare to stray too far from their meal ticket. And they can hold this position, usually in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, for decades at a time. You probably need at least one whole education cycle to even move the entrenched opinions, let alone **re**move them.
As for the Art World, I suspect money laundering can explain the whole of it - and explain why every actual artist you know is as poor as a church mouse. Certainly every time I see something selling for xxx millions of dollars I think "Someone is being paid.".
One thing I didn't make very clear, writing as I was in the early hours when I should have been sleeping, was the messaging pathway for the very young. Dinosaurs are presented as fact, yes, but establishing this "truth" early on in life teaches "trust the science", reinforced by the parents' acceptance of it, and placing the account where it can later stand in direct competition with the biblical account, which is often presented as not trustworthy.
I don't advocate for blind trust in anything. Both accounts call for critical examination, which in turn calls for learning to think critically.
The existence of fakery of course doesn't preclude the possibility of non-fakes. There are other aspects to this problem, however, that Agent131711 doesn't go into in depth (that I know of). Dinosaurs are part of Big Science with its history for centuries now of promoting the notion, without sound evidence, that we "somehow" came into being by chance and were not in fact designed and created. They are a tool for teaching children, from infancy, this made-up story of where we came from.
There are so many problems with that, and yet a great many people have accepted it as unquestionable fact and fashioned their lives around it, whatever they might think about dinosaurs. That is the deeper issue, and the deeper deception.
I still believe in dinosaurs and the hoax within the world but fossil fuels I think is alot of baloney
However I am VERY much sold on the concept of pole shifting and magnetic field catastrophes wiping out most life on earth. The more I learn the more it makes sense and the Bible stories make more sense.
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/pole-reversals-coming-to-a-theater
Thanks very much but I find the you tube channel Suspicious Observers to have much greater scientific detail. I’ve read a number of books as well. I don’t think it’s coming in the next twenty years but it’s soon. Climate Change is the grift for wealth and control but there is far too much evidence that matches up for me. There was never continental drift that we were taught as kids but cataclysm. Too many world leaders have been caught making quick trips to Antarctica as there is something there and I don’t think it’s aliens but proof of an ancient civilization that could have only existed in warmer climate.
Sure we agree on the climate change re wealth, but it's more, it's to take everything away from us. Pole reversals happen every 450k years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_geomagnetic_reversals
and the data I have on volcanoes and quakes is just about the best you can get and they are not more frequent, unless it's faked. Reese is stating they are more frequent but he is a clear elite propaganda agent working with AJ to scare us with as much as they can, and I debunked Op Nanook, so finding opposite data must be the correct data. Take care.
I've also lost trust with wikipedia
I agree, only you have to cross check it. I put in the reference just below about the last pole reversal 780k yrs ago,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0012821X94902445
and you can see the Wiki ref on pole reversals, its here
Cande, S.C., and D.V. Kent, Revised calibration of the geomagnetic polarity timescale for the late Cretaceous and Cenozoic, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 6,093-6,095, 1995.
Most people can't understand this level of detail so the fear mongers don't care if it is correct, they can manipulate 70% of the population by news, TV and SM.
Dinosaurs are a hoax... it was laid out perfectly in this series... so unless you have 100% proof that dinosaurs are real, you are just living a lie... PROVE YOUR CLAIM!!!
I don't have proof but this is not like virology where we can see how they can fudge it, all dinosaur paleontologists would have to be very consciously lying and I find that very hard to believe ... and I don't see that there's proof they don't exist. I have an open mind on the subject at this point.
and negatives cannot be proven... that's like saying, "prove pink unicorns don't exist"... it cannot be done... the proof of the lie was laid out in this series... if you beLIEve differently, then the burden of proof is on YOU to prove dinosaurs exist.
NO, they don't have to be consciously lying... Paleontologists follow what they were indoctrinated with in school (just like Virologists)... they have no clue they've been lied to and continue the lie without knowledge (just like Virologists)... but since you have zero proof of claim, i'll chalk it up to conjecture and speculation but obviously there is NO proof of dinosaurs anywhere (just like viruses)...
I'm afraid I disagree. They go into deserts and dig up fossilised bones that can be put together to form the skeletons of dinosaurs. I think they need to be lying if they're not actually doing that. So far, however, I have not seen a purported real dinosaur skeleton. When I see one (and I have to allow fakery of course) that would be something.
The guy spends 70 hours researching and writing and you come in and regurgitate the mainstream nonsense, provide ZERO proof of claim, and you beLIEve that that somehow proves dinosaurs are real... un-fucking-believable!!!
you admit it's all fake but continue to hold onto the lie... that's call brainwashing... ffs
Prove the bones are for dinosaurs... did you even read this series??? He explains its bullshit... but burden of proof is on you. They dont even find complete skeletons and make shit up as they go along... PROVE YOUR CLAIM.