It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Butterfinger
So "experts" make decissions on what it is or isn't on mine and your behalf
"Experts" like phage I expect, decide what's debunked and what's not
Experts decide if it's a little lizard or a big lizard, your acting a little ignorant and a little reliant on others opinions, that's fine
But those experts don't decide what I believe
That depiction may not be a stegosaurus, it may well be an undocumented species of dinosaur
I am going with a variant of a Steg, don't care what your experts say, they don't decide for me, neither do you, not without hard science
I am no expert but your pretty picture, no plates, long spindly legs, long skinny tail, large head crest, your experts are stupid, they are clearly not experts on obvious observations
originally posted by: Butterfinger
Thats Aghor Wat in cambodia, not Gobekli Tepe. Also debunked:
Conclusion based on that, no remains and probability say that it is more likely:
No one can debunk this because every early historical reference to dragons is considered myth and legend, despite the world wide accounts of such creatures.
I think it's extremely ignorant to dismiss the possibility that some dinosaurs were still knocking about more recently than the history books would have us know.
originally posted by: Gargoyle91
a reply to: Butterfinger
Thanks for the correction but not buying the chameleon description.
originally posted by: buddha
I have belied this for a long time.
dragons from England to Japan!
how can they have not been real.
and the old maps had sea monsters in some places.
look at the old maps. they are Not whales.
humans LOVE to kill.
that's why we don't have dragons and unicorns.
look at the tiger! we have almost killed them all.
we still may.
originally posted by: Astrocyte
This is a truly unbelievable thread - as in "not remotely plausible".
You are more or less implying that there has been a deliberate coverup of dinosaur bones; why? What good would that accomplish, and why would archeologists, and the myriads of students they bring along with them for excavations, all contribute to the hoax?
I like to think that there are two extremes in human knowing: we can claim something over-zealously, and therefore not quite notice the paranoia - or threat disposition - that are assertion is deriving from.
On the other hand, we can be naive, and come to think that the world is less complex and multifarious in terms of its moral actors than it really is.
In balancing these two considerations, I simply fail to see the value or importance of concealing the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans, and, furthermore, because carbon dating and other forms of dating so clearly align, placing the brachiosaurus to 161 million years ago, whereas anatomically modern humans have been around for at most 300,000 years.
The absence of coherency to the whole claim, from the theoretical (inconsistent with evolution) to the empirical (complete absence of fossil evidence) leads me to conclude that you're simply off-base, and need to accept the intense improbability of this being true.