Well, first off I'd suggest you educate yourself. Fossil fuels come from kerogen - organic detritus in the rocks from microorganisms - the idea that something is labelled a fossil furl and therefore must come from one small set of fossils called dinosaurs is frankly simply embarrassing. Secondly, the process of fossilization is well known, well documentd and one day may happen to you.
Without even getting into oil (there may be something in what you claim for all I know) what about coal? Coal develops from peat and peat is obviously organic matter which can burn ... and does.
You've heard of petrified rock, right? They call it petrified rock but it's really trees that are petrified into rock.
So organic matter can turn into different things, depending on the processes applied.
Very well done & very interesting too. The whole subject has been covered by others before, but I have never seen such a deep analysis. On top of all the extensive ground you have covered, the humor you've inserted into this is fantastic! I have actually enjoyed reading everything along with watching the videos you have inserted comments into. Each day I've been checking to see if the next part is out yet, and when each arrived I dropped whatever I had planned and read every single word. This series of yours is exactly the sort of reveal I will introduce to people I know who are open minded but for whatever reason still have faith in the "history" presented to all of us by the lying so-called scientists. Thanks!
About the baby T Rex video you can see the Annenberg Media Center just at the end. I remember they had pushed Covid nonsense. You can see what they do here (mostly how to make propaganda) and other Globalist initiatives
And their foundation is involved with more fun stuff (if you don't understand the NWO plans for the world you may think they look like warm and fuzzy people just giving away money).
My sister insisted to me a few years ago that dinosaurs were a hoax based on:
--- she'd gone into a natural museum and they didn't have any actual dinosaur bones
--- she went into a university bookshop and the only books they had on dinosaurs were kids' books
--- the alleged size of certain dinosaurs (5 stories tall, for example) was impossible
Because of what my sister said, when I happened to be in the Australian Museum, Sydney, I asked if I could look at dinosaur bones and was told that they only come out on Thursdays and was I like, "Okaaay," but I didn't follow up - I think I will now.
I thought what she said was certainly enough to cast doubt on dinosaurs but I said to her I thought she should do some more research ... but that was enough for her. My sister works on the basis of "what she knows" combined with "what makes sense". I, on the other hand, like to canvass all the available evidence to allow for the fact that knowing more might mean my idea of "what makes sense" might change.
I thank you, Agent131711 for providing me with a great laugh in your Part 1 and also for prompting me to look for myself on the subject of dinosaurs ... and now that I have I have no doubt they existed. I've watched quite a few videos now of paleontologists in the field digging out fossils of ancient animals including dinosaurs and I cannot see any signs of fakery. Also, it simply makes no sense to me for teams to be going out in the hot sun into the wilds of Montana, spending their days digging through dirt if they're not genuinely looking for and obtaining fossils of ancient animals including dinosaurs.
The film, Dinosaur 13, is about the uncovering of the dinosaur skeleton, Sue, found in South Dakota and named after the woman Sue Hendrickson, who first noticed its bones sticking out of a hillside and that bones of that dinosaur form the most complete skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus Rex. It's on display at the Field Museum, Chicago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkP-f-zm5ZU
Often when I consider hypotheses - whether for or against the reality of something - what I think of as "the Shylock problem" arises. In the play, The Merchant of Venice, Shylock demands a pound of flesh in place of an unpaid loan. It is determined that this cannot be demanded as Shylock could not take only a pound of flesh, he would have to take blood, etc as well.
--- at fossil digs various types of animals will be found. Even if paleontologists are really looking for dinosaurs they will find other ancient types of animals such as turtles. Are these fake too or do the paleontologists tell the truth about the other types and simply make up and fake the dinosaurs?
My two rules of critical thinking are:
--- Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong
--- Confine analysis to the most relevant, irrefutable facts in the first instance
These are irrefutable facts. This video shows:
--- John Scannella, the John R. Horner Curator of Paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, at a dig where we can see what looks like fossilised bones being excavated from the dirt that he recognises as triceratops.
--- A mounted object that looks like a fossilised head of what is known as a triceratops - there's no sense of it really being made from plaster or otherwise faked, it looks perfectly genuine - unless you want to point out how it doesn't appear genuine?
--- ALL alleged species of dinosaur are fake from very small to very large? Do you say that that all the dinosaur bones in museums are fake such as the triceratops head shown in the video just linked to?
--- paleontologists don't fake it when it's non-dinosaur fossils such as turtles but do when it's allegedly dinosaur fossils ... or?
--- All the images we see of alleged fossilised dinosaur bones being excavated at digs are produced by burying the bones deceptively but not in the case of non-dinosaur bones ... or?
Omg…I’m LMAO at this series! NOT the content, but the humor! It’s sad to realize how gullible as a society we’ve been. But I guess that’s the nature of normal, God-fearing people…not sociopathic Elites. We assume, for the most part, everyone is good. Hurts to realize that’s not true.
Congratulations on writing the largest piece of turgid shit I ever had the misfortune to read. You must have some lack of brain cells to think you can discuss things you have not even a starting clue about and not jump to totally insane and ridiculous theories. I am a PhD geologist. While there are many things still to be described, discovered and explained, fossils isnt one of them. I wouldn't even know where to start pulling this apart because it is based on sheer lack of knowledge, no common sense and lack of critical thought. Humanity is evolving backwards - well done - Mr caveman - Homo knownothingcus
OK, these are a couple of things the author has got wrong.
The Etches Collection does not include dinosaurs despite the animals kept there having "saur" in their names (Greek for "lizard") - the pliosaur and the ichthyosaur are both marine reptiles but are not considered to be dinosaurs because dinosaurs have legs perpendicular to and under their bodies. Ironically, while their name derives from the Greek for lizard and we associate legs out to the side very much with lizards, dinosaurs do not have legs out to the side - or that's the latest I've read anyway, obviously when you're talking about pre-history there's a lot of guesswork and ideas change as time goes on.
The fact of rich people being the only people credited with discovering all the dinosaurs doesn't mean much. Being credited doesn't mean being the discoverer and we do see instances of others being credited such as very poor woman (child, in fact, at the time), Mary Anning with the discovery of the ichthyosaur - admitted not ultimately a dinosaur but it was thought to be at the time and in any case an impressive, very ancient animal. Her story is very interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Anning
Fuck off you full of common sense at least triple injected idiot. No one that got injected with that poison can ever talk about common sense ever again. You proved yourself to lack any form of common sense. You are nothing more than a gullible fool regardless of any phd you might have. Go get another dose of the poison. It saves lives.
Before starting to read this series I was slightly doubtful about dinosaurs and I have to say I found Part I quite compelling and hilarious. However, as soon as I started to "do my own research" and watched videos of paleontologists out in the field it immediately struck me that it would be absurd to think that these enthusiastic individuals would take themselves out into the wilds of Montana and South Dakota and bury faked dinosaurs and then dig in the dirt in the hot sun to emerge triumphant with them - often, in fact, not really so triumphant just odd pieces here and there. Also, where dinosaurs are found other ancient animals are found so what happens? The fossils of the other species are real but dinosaurs not? It makes no sense of course.
I don't know why you ad hominem when there is perfectly good evidence to present for the reality of dinosaurs. Those who challenge you make good points. You completely undermine the argument for the truth of dinosaurs when you respond in this derisive way. I can understand that you think it's ludicrous to doubt dinosaurs but that doesn't mean you have to express that incredulity derisively in your argument. Just present your case without all the negativity, that is all that is required.
It would also be absurd that doctors will kill patients in cold blood or that otherwise young and healthy idiots would agree to wear underwears over their faces and stayed locked inside for over two years in order to fight an alleged virus with an alleged 99+% surivival rate in the general population. Yet all of this happened. Going for a paid by the taxpayer camping trip for a couple of weeks in the desert and getting more money on top of that is nothing compared to the absurdities everyone witnessed during the plandemic.
Doctors aren't killing patients in cold blood, they're under the spell of propaganda and coercion.
Behaving according to propaganda, peer pressure and coercion is not the same as going out under the hot sun and digging for bones ... and they actually need to find very tangible bones. You simply cannot compare digging for something so tangible as fossilised bones (ordinary bones can't be planted in their place, fossils have a completely different texture) to viruses allegedly found from a sputum sample with an Electron Microscope. They are vastly different animals.
Thanks for digging into all this stuff. With me you could save a lot of time and trouble, but more people need to know about these things. Naturally, the people who cannot and will not listen are the scientists themselves (most of them, not just in this field), who trust their blind beliefs more than their own common sense. I can't entirely blame them, given that they work in fields where if they changed their minds, they might well not work in that field any longer, at least not doing anything interesting, and their religion offers no escape.
One area I don't recall you going into just yet is dating methods. With all that radiation coming out of those bones, rocks, or whatever it seems like the problem wouldn't be all that difficult. But what a joke the dating is. I think you did say something about C14 dating in connection with "millions of years", which had me scratching my head, but that's OK. You'll get to it, I trust.
There's also a fun area that I'm just learning about, "dinosaur bones" discovered with meat still on them (no, not fossilized -- actual protein). Given the purported ages, that's shelf life even the processed food industry couldn't offer.
Thank you, I came here to mention dating methods also. Carbon dating is only reliable about 60,000 years at BEST. I did a lot of research on this subject years ago, after completing my undergrad degree in biological science and beginning to question The Science when things didn't seem to add up to me. (Read "Darwin's Black Box"--this is the book that started my questioning journey on this topic.) I recall reading somewhere that the reason The Scientists had to put out these wild dating estimates (millions and bajillions of years) is because the only way they can justify their theory of evolution is by positing laughably ridiculous timelines. This is to account for the long, long, long, really, really, long time they figure it must take genes to mutate to the point where a bacteria becomes a dinosaur and then later a human. Or whatever. I also read somewhere, around early 2000s, that oil was quietly being discovered to renew itself, thus "surprise!" we weren't actually running out of oil after all but that secret can't be let out because we have to keep the masses scared and easily manipulated. So scarce oil it must be.
Anyway, thank you for this series because I hadn't really gone down the rabbit hole of dinosaur skeletons before. I just assumed they were fossils not nearly as old as The Science claimed, but still actual fossils. Damn, this is so disappointing yet not surprising.
Side note...did anyone notice chemtrails being sprayed across the eclipse this afternoon? Because they were chemtrailing like crazy over here in Northern Kentucky, as we were all valiantly trying to view the celestial phenomenon. *sigh* They just can't let us enjoy anything natural anymore, can they? :(
They have been heavily chemtrailing over where I live especially since 2020, but this morning of the eclipse, it was at least double the normal amount. There was a white haze everywhere like fog. Not sure why they need extra chemtrails during an eclipse!
I read that they wanted to dump this stuff on us while as many people as possible were outdoors. IDK, but it was at least double the amount of usual chemtrails during yesterday's eclipse overhead where I am, too.
Northern Kentucky? My mother was from Metropolis, IL. Her family migrated to that area from Kentucky ahead of the Civil War. With all that's going on with Illinois now, the living relatives have migrated back to Kentucky.
Dating estimates: I'll tell you what I think it is if you tell me what you think it is first.
Something got into me in 2003, a mind virus maybe, and I suddenly saw evolution as making sense as I was reading _In Search of the Double Helix_ by John Gribbin. In 2011 I visited the Smithsonian and saw the various exhibits and they finally made sense too. It took until 2017 or so before my sense started working again, at least for that subject. So I can see how even people that should know better can fall for it. I was influenced by other people online, not in social media but in other discussion venues. It was a good lesson.
I did know that the "reconstructions" were constructed, and I knew that everything was based upon paltry collections of bones or rock or something. At Walt Disney World in Florida, you could, as I recall, peek in on people busy making new "skeletons".
How about checking out a few YouTube videos of paleontologists on site and seeing them dig fossils out of the ground before giving her the bad news. Here's three:
Just say they are like a cartoon character. I have a four-year-old son who loves dinosaurs also, but the only person getting bothered about me saying dinosaurs not existing is his 68-year-old father. Brainwashing was super heavy in the 1960s-70s.
Since 2014 I've woken up to numerous psyops and some I've determined on my own (eg, Operation Northwoods which I worked out was a faked false-flag proposal - https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/operation-northwoods-false-flag-proposal) so despite recognising that I probably still believe lots of things that aren't true I'm certainly open to not believing things.
I have no doubt about the existence of dinosaurs, however, because I see the evidence of paleontologists out in the field digging them up and while theoretically I suppose it's possible that they could have buried faked pieces and then dug them up, there is no evidence of this kind of fakery. Everything looks genuine and why would they show themselves pretty empty-handed a lot of the time? It just makes no sense at all.
We can see how virologists have perpetuated the virus myth - wittingly or unwittingly - because of the very convenient fact that alleged viruses are only visible with EMs and there are so many microscopic particles to point at and go, "That's a virus particle." The same does not apply to pieces of dinosaur. They are in-your-face pieces and the level of duplicity needed by paleontologists is simply way, way beyond credibility. And what about the other ancient animals? Are ancient turtles real but dinosaurs not? Are they faking the turtles ... or do they just fake the animals nominated as dinosaurs and all the other animal fossils are real?
The term "dinosaur" simply refers to a diverse group of reptiles that lived millions of years ago during the Mesozoic Era, which spanned from approximately 230 to 65 million years ago. The word "dinosaur" itself comes from the Greek words "deinos," meaning "terrible" or "fearfully great," and "sauros," meaning "lizard" or "reptile." Therefore, the term "dinosaur" can be interpreted to mean "terrible lizard."
The thing is though not all dinosaurs from the Mesozoic Era fit "fearfully great". There are hundreds of species of dinosaurs which range in size from a couple of pounds (or even smaller) to monsters five stories high. Are ALL reptiles from the Mesozoic Era fake?
While the author keeps focusing on how all dinosaurs were discovered by a few rich people this is a distortion.
Firstly, the person credited with discovery isn't necessarily the person who was the actual discoverer. The road maintenance person who notices a bone sticking out won't be necessarily be credited, will he?, it'll be the rich, powerful person who comes along and identifies the bone who will.
Secondly, Mary Anning, having both being poor and a woman massively against her, is actually credited with being the person who first correctly identified a ichthyosaur skeleton when she was twelve years old! As someone whose family lived locally to masses of fossils in Lyme Regis she and her family spent their days fossil-hunting to sell them for money and so it was difficult for her not to receive some credit at least as she was responsible for finding so many bones and obviously had a knack for identifying animals.
Ichthyosaurs despite having "saur" in their name are not actually dinosaurs (whose scientific designation includes legs perpendicular to and underneath body and land-based), they're marine reptiles who got their name because they're lizard-like - ironically, lizards who have legs sprawled out to the size are not dinosaurs.
If you tell your granddaughter they are like cartoon characters you are doing her a disservice.
Hi Petra. I love Agents work, but im also glad you are here to add balance. Personally, i think Agent makes some great points that cant be ignored, and i think its fair to say that, whatever is the actual truth about the existence of huge dinos like T-rex and diplodocus etc, that there does appear to be enough junk science and fraud involved to raise more than a few eyebrows. Especially given the issues with carbon dating that now arise. I'm not sure if you've covered this anywhere, but I'd be interested to know your thoughts on macro evolution.
I just thought I'd do a little scattered research and I have to say it's like when I was rather persuaded of the fakery of the moon landings by Wagging the Moondoggie but was stopped dead in my tracks by the audio recordings of the astronauts' communications with mission control. I'm like, "No way could this be faked." I didn't know at the time that there are over 200 hours of recordings for Apollo 11 alone but just a few minutes was enough for me really. I'm like, "This could not be faked." Of course, that's just my opinion but until someone points out signs of fakery in those 200 hours or why oh why oh why they'd attempt to fake 200 hours I'll stick with my belief in the reality of the moon landings (supported by lots of other reasons too though).
So I was quite persuaded by Part 1 (and also my sister's experience) but then when I looked at paleontologists out in the field, I'm like, "No way! They cannot be burying bones - at least not all of them - and pretending to dig them up, that's ridiculous."
It's true there's some fakery - even admitted - but some fakery or some ludicrous guesswork from a few bones or various other issues - are not enough to make dinosaurs a hoax.
No one denies the existence of those 200 hours. It's what they're actually purported to be talking about, IN those audio tapes, that's of contention. Are they really talking about a craft that looks like it was smacked together with duct tape, passed through a radiation layer deadly to human life, landed safely on the moon, then returend to Earth after unbelievably fake-looking [not to mention slowed down, and now officially LOST] imagery of those guys on the "lunar surface?" If the Corona hoax has proved anything, it's that you can get millions of people to believe something, simply because Authority says so. So who knows what people who were working in the Apollo programs, or the succeeding lunar programs, thought they were REALLY doing.
I don't know about the dinosaurs, but in my opinion the lunar hoax is the most brazen, money-grabbing, show-of-the-20th-century fake act that has ever been produced.
By the way: I like that you do your own research. It shows that you're not simply eating up any ol' substack article, and that's admirable. Lots of people fail to do even that. But I fail to see how anyone can take the Moon hoax seriously, the evidence against it is so staggering, the mind shakes.
1. The naysayers don't deny them mostly because they're completely unaware of them, not having done the due diligence they should have done.
2. They are a tangible piece of evidence and they need to be accounted for. Where's the evidence of fakery? Where's the evidence of anyone saying anything that is inconsistent with going to the moon.
This is a 45-minute fascinating video on the craft that you describe as "smacked together with duct tape." Would you diss a Lamborghini under a dust cover as a "pile of crap".
I've done due diligence so I know about aulis, I also know about the debunking of aulis and all the other naysayers. I've done my due diligence. What about you?
This is my post which includes a reposting of a refutation of the film, American Moon, by Massimo Mazzucco as well as links to another analysis plus a few other links.
The dinosaur bone turned into a rock?! But but but they told me dinosaur bones turned into OIL!
Oh, which lie to believe ...
Well, first off I'd suggest you educate yourself. Fossil fuels come from kerogen - organic detritus in the rocks from microorganisms - the idea that something is labelled a fossil furl and therefore must come from one small set of fossils called dinosaurs is frankly simply embarrassing. Secondly, the process of fossilization is well known, well documentd and one day may happen to you.
I thought my sarcasm was evident ....
"Fossil fuels" are most likely produced by an abiogenic process, and on an ongoing basis. Fossils and dead dinosaurs have nothing to do with it.
Without even getting into oil (there may be something in what you claim for all I know) what about coal? Coal develops from peat and peat is obviously organic matter which can burn ... and does.
You've heard of petrified rock, right? They call it petrified rock but it's really trees that are petrified into rock.
So organic matter can turn into different things, depending on the processes applied.
🦖🤣 Thanks for sharing your research… everyone should learn about this hoax.
Hoax? The guy is deluded. Not a clue.
Very well done & very interesting too. The whole subject has been covered by others before, but I have never seen such a deep analysis. On top of all the extensive ground you have covered, the humor you've inserted into this is fantastic! I have actually enjoyed reading everything along with watching the videos you have inserted comments into. Each day I've been checking to see if the next part is out yet, and when each arrived I dropped whatever I had planned and read every single word. This series of yours is exactly the sort of reveal I will introduce to people I know who are open minded but for whatever reason still have faith in the "history" presented to all of us by the lying so-called scientists. Thanks!
About the baby T Rex video you can see the Annenberg Media Center just at the end. I remember they had pushed Covid nonsense. You can see what they do here (mostly how to make propaganda) and other Globalist initiatives
https://annenberg.usc.edu/current-students/media-center
And their foundation is involved with more fun stuff (if you don't understand the NWO plans for the world you may think they look like warm and fuzzy people just giving away money).
https://annenberg.org/initiatives/
& what about The Fossil Girl?
"the true story of 10-year-old Mary Anning who, nearly 200 years ago, discovered the first complete fossil of an Ichthyosaurus, or fish lizard"
My sister insisted to me a few years ago that dinosaurs were a hoax based on:
--- she'd gone into a natural museum and they didn't have any actual dinosaur bones
--- she went into a university bookshop and the only books they had on dinosaurs were kids' books
--- the alleged size of certain dinosaurs (5 stories tall, for example) was impossible
Because of what my sister said, when I happened to be in the Australian Museum, Sydney, I asked if I could look at dinosaur bones and was told that they only come out on Thursdays and was I like, "Okaaay," but I didn't follow up - I think I will now.
I thought what she said was certainly enough to cast doubt on dinosaurs but I said to her I thought she should do some more research ... but that was enough for her. My sister works on the basis of "what she knows" combined with "what makes sense". I, on the other hand, like to canvass all the available evidence to allow for the fact that knowing more might mean my idea of "what makes sense" might change.
I thank you, Agent131711 for providing me with a great laugh in your Part 1 and also for prompting me to look for myself on the subject of dinosaurs ... and now that I have I have no doubt they existed. I've watched quite a few videos now of paleontologists in the field digging out fossils of ancient animals including dinosaurs and I cannot see any signs of fakery. Also, it simply makes no sense to me for teams to be going out in the hot sun into the wilds of Montana, spending their days digging through dirt if they're not genuinely looking for and obtaining fossils of ancient animals including dinosaurs.
The film, Dinosaur 13, is about the uncovering of the dinosaur skeleton, Sue, found in South Dakota and named after the woman Sue Hendrickson, who first noticed its bones sticking out of a hillside and that bones of that dinosaur form the most complete skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus Rex. It's on display at the Field Museum, Chicago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkP-f-zm5ZU
Dinosaur and other fossil digging, South Dakota - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paedKsQe2NM
Another dig in South Dakota - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GTADthe8wI
Video on cleaning fossils where you see a couple in situ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73RJlqi_hQQ
No way you believe more now that's hilarious
Often when I consider hypotheses - whether for or against the reality of something - what I think of as "the Shylock problem" arises. In the play, The Merchant of Venice, Shylock demands a pound of flesh in place of an unpaid loan. It is determined that this cannot be demanded as Shylock could not take only a pound of flesh, he would have to take blood, etc as well.
If we say dinosaurs are a hoax do we say:
--- all alleged species of dinosaurs are a hoax - there's allegedly a pretty significant number - including the ox-sized sauropod, Europasaurus https://www.thoughtco.com/europasaurus-1092719, and other dinosaurs whose size can be very small, in fact, eg, the Aquilops, a horned, frilled dinosaur supposedly only weighing 3 pounds. https://www.thoughtco.com/smallest-dinosaurs-and-prehistoric-animals-1093812
--- at fossil digs various types of animals will be found. Even if paleontologists are really looking for dinosaurs they will find other ancient types of animals such as turtles. Are these fake too or do the paleontologists tell the truth about the other types and simply make up and fake the dinosaurs?
My two rules of critical thinking are:
--- Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong
--- Confine analysis to the most relevant, irrefutable facts in the first instance
These are irrefutable facts. This video shows:
--- John Scannella, the John R. Horner Curator of Paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, at a dig where we can see what looks like fossilised bones being excavated from the dirt that he recognises as triceratops.
--- A mounted object that looks like a fossilised head of what is known as a triceratops - there's no sense of it really being made from plaster or otherwise faked, it looks perfectly genuine - unless you want to point out how it doesn't appear genuine?
https://youtu.be/eDRTBHwllGQ?si=1XqWQD5Bhc1wMXwm&t=112
So, Sterling, do you say:
--- ALL alleged species of dinosaur are fake from very small to very large? Do you say that that all the dinosaur bones in museums are fake such as the triceratops head shown in the video just linked to?
--- paleontologists don't fake it when it's non-dinosaur fossils such as turtles but do when it's allegedly dinosaur fossils ... or?
--- All the images we see of alleged fossilised dinosaur bones being excavated at digs are produced by burying the bones deceptively but not in the case of non-dinosaur bones ... or?
Omg…I’m LMAO at this series! NOT the content, but the humor! It’s sad to realize how gullible as a society we’ve been. But I guess that’s the nature of normal, God-fearing people…not sociopathic Elites. We assume, for the most part, everyone is good. Hurts to realize that’s not true.
My favorite line from 180 Degrees (Feargus O’Connor Greenwood).
“You need to at least be open to the idea that everything you’ve been taught is a lie”
Congratulations on writing the largest piece of turgid shit I ever had the misfortune to read. You must have some lack of brain cells to think you can discuss things you have not even a starting clue about and not jump to totally insane and ridiculous theories. I am a PhD geologist. While there are many things still to be described, discovered and explained, fossils isnt one of them. I wouldn't even know where to start pulling this apart because it is based on sheer lack of knowledge, no common sense and lack of critical thought. Humanity is evolving backwards - well done - Mr caveman - Homo knownothingcus
The usual ad hominem attacks, and claiming expert status etc. surely if you actually had a case to refute any of this, you would share it, right? 🤷♂️
OK, these are a couple of things the author has got wrong.
The Etches Collection does not include dinosaurs despite the animals kept there having "saur" in their names (Greek for "lizard") - the pliosaur and the ichthyosaur are both marine reptiles but are not considered to be dinosaurs because dinosaurs have legs perpendicular to and under their bodies. Ironically, while their name derives from the Greek for lizard and we associate legs out to the side very much with lizards, dinosaurs do not have legs out to the side - or that's the latest I've read anyway, obviously when you're talking about pre-history there's a lot of guesswork and ideas change as time goes on.
The fact of rich people being the only people credited with discovering all the dinosaurs doesn't mean much. Being credited doesn't mean being the discoverer and we do see instances of others being credited such as very poor woman (child, in fact, at the time), Mary Anning with the discovery of the ichthyosaur - admitted not ultimately a dinosaur but it was thought to be at the time and in any case an impressive, very ancient animal. Her story is very interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Anning
Why don’t you start proving him wrong, one piece at a time? Isn’t that the whole point of this platform?
Fuck off you full of common sense at least triple injected idiot. No one that got injected with that poison can ever talk about common sense ever again. You proved yourself to lack any form of common sense. You are nothing more than a gullible fool regardless of any phd you might have. Go get another dose of the poison. It saves lives.
Before starting to read this series I was slightly doubtful about dinosaurs and I have to say I found Part I quite compelling and hilarious. However, as soon as I started to "do my own research" and watched videos of paleontologists out in the field it immediately struck me that it would be absurd to think that these enthusiastic individuals would take themselves out into the wilds of Montana and South Dakota and bury faked dinosaurs and then dig in the dirt in the hot sun to emerge triumphant with them - often, in fact, not really so triumphant just odd pieces here and there. Also, where dinosaurs are found other ancient animals are found so what happens? The fossils of the other species are real but dinosaurs not? It makes no sense of course.
I don't know why you ad hominem when there is perfectly good evidence to present for the reality of dinosaurs. Those who challenge you make good points. You completely undermine the argument for the truth of dinosaurs when you respond in this derisive way. I can understand that you think it's ludicrous to doubt dinosaurs but that doesn't mean you have to express that incredulity derisively in your argument. Just present your case without all the negativity, that is all that is required.
It would also be absurd that doctors will kill patients in cold blood or that otherwise young and healthy idiots would agree to wear underwears over their faces and stayed locked inside for over two years in order to fight an alleged virus with an alleged 99+% surivival rate in the general population. Yet all of this happened. Going for a paid by the taxpayer camping trip for a couple of weeks in the desert and getting more money on top of that is nothing compared to the absurdities everyone witnessed during the plandemic.
Doctors aren't killing patients in cold blood, they're under the spell of propaganda and coercion.
Behaving according to propaganda, peer pressure and coercion is not the same as going out under the hot sun and digging for bones ... and they actually need to find very tangible bones. You simply cannot compare digging for something so tangible as fossilised bones (ordinary bones can't be planted in their place, fossils have a completely different texture) to viruses allegedly found from a sputum sample with an Electron Microscope. They are vastly different animals.
Thanks for digging into all this stuff. With me you could save a lot of time and trouble, but more people need to know about these things. Naturally, the people who cannot and will not listen are the scientists themselves (most of them, not just in this field), who trust their blind beliefs more than their own common sense. I can't entirely blame them, given that they work in fields where if they changed their minds, they might well not work in that field any longer, at least not doing anything interesting, and their religion offers no escape.
One area I don't recall you going into just yet is dating methods. With all that radiation coming out of those bones, rocks, or whatever it seems like the problem wouldn't be all that difficult. But what a joke the dating is. I think you did say something about C14 dating in connection with "millions of years", which had me scratching my head, but that's OK. You'll get to it, I trust.
There's also a fun area that I'm just learning about, "dinosaur bones" discovered with meat still on them (no, not fossilized -- actual protein). Given the purported ages, that's shelf life even the processed food industry couldn't offer.
Thank you, I came here to mention dating methods also. Carbon dating is only reliable about 60,000 years at BEST. I did a lot of research on this subject years ago, after completing my undergrad degree in biological science and beginning to question The Science when things didn't seem to add up to me. (Read "Darwin's Black Box"--this is the book that started my questioning journey on this topic.) I recall reading somewhere that the reason The Scientists had to put out these wild dating estimates (millions and bajillions of years) is because the only way they can justify their theory of evolution is by positing laughably ridiculous timelines. This is to account for the long, long, long, really, really, long time they figure it must take genes to mutate to the point where a bacteria becomes a dinosaur and then later a human. Or whatever. I also read somewhere, around early 2000s, that oil was quietly being discovered to renew itself, thus "surprise!" we weren't actually running out of oil after all but that secret can't be let out because we have to keep the masses scared and easily manipulated. So scarce oil it must be.
Anyway, thank you for this series because I hadn't really gone down the rabbit hole of dinosaur skeletons before. I just assumed they were fossils not nearly as old as The Science claimed, but still actual fossils. Damn, this is so disappointing yet not surprising.
Side note...did anyone notice chemtrails being sprayed across the eclipse this afternoon? Because they were chemtrailing like crazy over here in Northern Kentucky, as we were all valiantly trying to view the celestial phenomenon. *sigh* They just can't let us enjoy anything natural anymore, can they? :(
They have been heavily chemtrailing over where I live especially since 2020, but this morning of the eclipse, it was at least double the normal amount. There was a white haze everywhere like fog. Not sure why they need extra chemtrails during an eclipse!
I read that they wanted to dump this stuff on us while as many people as possible were outdoors. IDK, but it was at least double the amount of usual chemtrails during yesterday's eclipse overhead where I am, too.
Northern Kentucky? My mother was from Metropolis, IL. Her family migrated to that area from Kentucky ahead of the Civil War. With all that's going on with Illinois now, the living relatives have migrated back to Kentucky.
Dating estimates: I'll tell you what I think it is if you tell me what you think it is first.
Something got into me in 2003, a mind virus maybe, and I suddenly saw evolution as making sense as I was reading _In Search of the Double Helix_ by John Gribbin. In 2011 I visited the Smithsonian and saw the various exhibits and they finally made sense too. It took until 2017 or so before my sense started working again, at least for that subject. So I can see how even people that should know better can fall for it. I was influenced by other people online, not in social media but in other discussion venues. It was a good lesson.
I did know that the "reconstructions" were constructed, and I knew that everything was based upon paltry collections of bones or rock or something. At Walt Disney World in Florida, you could, as I recall, peek in on people busy making new "skeletons".
I always wondered whether they would have come up with a whale if whales were extinct & they had to reconstruct it from bones.
Here is what a dinosaur crest horn would have sounded like (if it ever existed): https://youtu.be/jRIQp4qZrrE
Question everything ❓❓❓
It’s Jews all the way down.
fantastic...I have a 9 year old granddaughter who is in LOVE with all "dinosaurs ".... how do i tell her?
How about checking out a few YouTube videos of paleontologists on site and seeing them dig fossils out of the ground before giving her the bad news. Here's three:
Dinosaur and other fossil digging, South Dakota - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paedKsQe2NM
Another dig in South Dakota - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GTADthe8wI
Video on cleaning fossils where you see a couple in situ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73RJlqi_hQQ
Just say they are like a cartoon character. I have a four-year-old son who loves dinosaurs also, but the only person getting bothered about me saying dinosaurs not existing is his 68-year-old father. Brainwashing was super heavy in the 1960s-70s.
Since 2014 I've woken up to numerous psyops and some I've determined on my own (eg, Operation Northwoods which I worked out was a faked false-flag proposal - https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/operation-northwoods-false-flag-proposal) so despite recognising that I probably still believe lots of things that aren't true I'm certainly open to not believing things.
I have no doubt about the existence of dinosaurs, however, because I see the evidence of paleontologists out in the field digging them up and while theoretically I suppose it's possible that they could have buried faked pieces and then dug them up, there is no evidence of this kind of fakery. Everything looks genuine and why would they show themselves pretty empty-handed a lot of the time? It just makes no sense at all.
We can see how virologists have perpetuated the virus myth - wittingly or unwittingly - because of the very convenient fact that alleged viruses are only visible with EMs and there are so many microscopic particles to point at and go, "That's a virus particle." The same does not apply to pieces of dinosaur. They are in-your-face pieces and the level of duplicity needed by paleontologists is simply way, way beyond credibility. And what about the other ancient animals? Are ancient turtles real but dinosaurs not? Are they faking the turtles ... or do they just fake the animals nominated as dinosaurs and all the other animal fossils are real?
The term "dinosaur" simply refers to a diverse group of reptiles that lived millions of years ago during the Mesozoic Era, which spanned from approximately 230 to 65 million years ago. The word "dinosaur" itself comes from the Greek words "deinos," meaning "terrible" or "fearfully great," and "sauros," meaning "lizard" or "reptile." Therefore, the term "dinosaur" can be interpreted to mean "terrible lizard."
The thing is though not all dinosaurs from the Mesozoic Era fit "fearfully great". There are hundreds of species of dinosaurs which range in size from a couple of pounds (or even smaller) to monsters five stories high. Are ALL reptiles from the Mesozoic Era fake?
While the author keeps focusing on how all dinosaurs were discovered by a few rich people this is a distortion.
Firstly, the person credited with discovery isn't necessarily the person who was the actual discoverer. The road maintenance person who notices a bone sticking out won't be necessarily be credited, will he?, it'll be the rich, powerful person who comes along and identifies the bone who will.
Secondly, Mary Anning, having both being poor and a woman massively against her, is actually credited with being the person who first correctly identified a ichthyosaur skeleton when she was twelve years old! As someone whose family lived locally to masses of fossils in Lyme Regis she and her family spent their days fossil-hunting to sell them for money and so it was difficult for her not to receive some credit at least as she was responsible for finding so many bones and obviously had a knack for identifying animals.
Ichthyosaurs despite having "saur" in their name are not actually dinosaurs (whose scientific designation includes legs perpendicular to and underneath body and land-based), they're marine reptiles who got their name because they're lizard-like - ironically, lizards who have legs sprawled out to the size are not dinosaurs.
If you tell your granddaughter they are like cartoon characters you are doing her a disservice.
Hi Petra. I love Agents work, but im also glad you are here to add balance. Personally, i think Agent makes some great points that cant be ignored, and i think its fair to say that, whatever is the actual truth about the existence of huge dinos like T-rex and diplodocus etc, that there does appear to be enough junk science and fraud involved to raise more than a few eyebrows. Especially given the issues with carbon dating that now arise. I'm not sure if you've covered this anywhere, but I'd be interested to know your thoughts on macro evolution.
Yes, I'll need to go over Agent's case better.
I just thought I'd do a little scattered research and I have to say it's like when I was rather persuaded of the fakery of the moon landings by Wagging the Moondoggie but was stopped dead in my tracks by the audio recordings of the astronauts' communications with mission control. I'm like, "No way could this be faked." I didn't know at the time that there are over 200 hours of recordings for Apollo 11 alone but just a few minutes was enough for me really. I'm like, "This could not be faked." Of course, that's just my opinion but until someone points out signs of fakery in those 200 hours or why oh why oh why they'd attempt to fake 200 hours I'll stick with my belief in the reality of the moon landings (supported by lots of other reasons too though).
So I was quite persuaded by Part 1 (and also my sister's experience) but then when I looked at paleontologists out in the field, I'm like, "No way! They cannot be burying bones - at least not all of them - and pretending to dig them up, that's ridiculous."
It's true there's some fakery - even admitted - but some fakery or some ludicrous guesswork from a few bones or various other issues - are not enough to make dinosaurs a hoax.
No one denies the existence of those 200 hours. It's what they're actually purported to be talking about, IN those audio tapes, that's of contention. Are they really talking about a craft that looks like it was smacked together with duct tape, passed through a radiation layer deadly to human life, landed safely on the moon, then returend to Earth after unbelievably fake-looking [not to mention slowed down, and now officially LOST] imagery of those guys on the "lunar surface?" If the Corona hoax has proved anything, it's that you can get millions of people to believe something, simply because Authority says so. So who knows what people who were working in the Apollo programs, or the succeeding lunar programs, thought they were REALLY doing.
I don't know about the dinosaurs, but in my opinion the lunar hoax is the most brazen, money-grabbing, show-of-the-20th-century fake act that has ever been produced.
This is a good start: https://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm
By the way: I like that you do your own research. It shows that you're not simply eating up any ol' substack article, and that's admirable. Lots of people fail to do even that. But I fail to see how anyone can take the Moon hoax seriously, the evidence against it is so staggering, the mind shakes.
The 200 hours
1. The naysayers don't deny them mostly because they're completely unaware of them, not having done the due diligence they should have done.
2. They are a tangible piece of evidence and they need to be accounted for. Where's the evidence of fakery? Where's the evidence of anyone saying anything that is inconsistent with going to the moon.
This is a 45-minute fascinating video on the craft that you describe as "smacked together with duct tape." Would you diss a Lamborghini under a dust cover as a "pile of crap".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yj3CUkhTzc&list=PLZJna6W59fFr04zJ3Pp3CJ4TtXMRkGPMV&index=4
I've done due diligence so I know about aulis, I also know about the debunking of aulis and all the other naysayers. I've done my due diligence. What about you?
This is my post which includes a reposting of a refutation of the film, American Moon, by Massimo Mazzucco as well as links to another analysis plus a few other links.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/american-moon-2017-superficially
Good question! I'd say to start raising good questions for her to think about, rather than burst her bubble all at once.
Great stuff, looking forward to number 4!