It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dinosaurs - the largest cover-up ever in Natural History - Piltdown Man to ... (Worldwide exclusive

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Warthhog, you really need to actually read the Bible before you make claims about what it actually says. You are simply basing what someone said in the Lacerta files about what the Bible says and no on even had proof that the Lacerta files are true. Just because you read that someone says that someone or something says something, don't believe it unless you read it yourself. What the female was saying in the Lacerta files is her take on what happened. No where does it say that serpents said "let us make him in our image", it says that God said that so where are you saying that if the Lacerta Files is a lie then the Bible is a piece of "cr2p??? Dude, you need to make some sense here with what you are saying when saying things are "facts".
Could what is being said in the Lacerta files have some truths to it? Perhaps so, as there are alot of things we have not explained about mankind and UFO'S and this and that. But other then it all being "theories", there is yet to be any proof to call facts...In any case, before you should read things for yourself before you make say things say things that they don't.
Thr bible says the "serpent" tempted Eve and that lead to Adam and Eve sinning against God, but it does not say that the serpents said "let us create man in our image". In the Bible, man was already created before the mention of the serpent. There are then reverences of the "Dragon" also in the bible. Do they tie in to what you are saying about the Lacerta files? Maybe they do in some way and we will find out in time. But as of right now, no one has come up with any solid proof for all to see, so perhaps there is no truth to it also. No one knows for sure either way, so until some comes up with "solid" proof, you can not say that something is a "fact"....




posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
OK, first off, I would like to commend all posters on Page 2, especially those who hugged REAL close to Byrd's nuts. Or eggs. Whatever.

The point is, people other than Matt Marriot know what he is talking about. Yet, given the reception on the previous 2 pages, why should ANY one post their evidence regarding anything shifty in the field of archaeology?

I mean, we even had someone blindly defending the PiltDown Man. That is SO 150 years ago, come on now.

As for the dinosaur fossils under 100s of feet of mud, I guess the question is where did all the mud come from? I am not disputing their existence, only their location!

It cannot be said that MM suggested the Dinosaurs died off right away, because clearly this effort could be done over a period of time, and could involve 'natural disasters' as well as large scale climate change. We just don't know what is feasible at this point, either accidentally OR by design.

Evolution WAS used to explain the extinction of the dinosaurs, regardless if 'the Flood' had previously been regarded to wipe them out (where's the documented reason for believing this, btw? I just remember something about giant beings similar to Humans being killed en masse).

In fact, the Dinosaurs were the original evidence for Evolution, to show that we had evidence of LONG TERM progress in terms of life, and intelligence, which is why dinosaurs were painted as exceedingly simple-minded (up until the raptors from JP).

The Mysterious origins of Man are not made less mysterious by simply believing we came after Dinos, and they evolved into birds.

No explanation is given for why MANY mammal species were much much larger only 12 000 years ago (hence the myth of man's past living in caves, where these massive bones have been found most abundantly, as opposed to under ground for dinosaurs).

Perhaps there are two different reasons for the two above noted problems?

Then again, maybe its not worth considering for yourself.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
No explanation is given for why MANY mammal species were much much larger only 12 000 years ago


Much much larger than what?

You're referring to the extinct megafauna of North and South America. The Australia megafauna became extinct 20,000 years earlier. And the African and Asia megafauna is still alive today. Just.

btw I assume you've all read up on palaeontology? I'd hate to think anyone is expressing opinions on subjects that they haven't even studied



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
In fact, the Dinosaurs were the original evidence for Evolution, to show that we had evidence of LONG TERM progress in terms of life, and intelligence, which is why dinosaurs were painted as exceedingly simple-minded (up until the raptors from JP).

Certainly the complete fossil record, including lots of non-dinosaur fossils, can be used to show how different species have existed and how they might have evolved from other species. However they were not the original evidence, just a part of it.

You have also made a basic error in your understanding of evolutionary theory. The theory has no concept of "progress" or that species will get "smarter" or more complex over generations. Evolution happens, that's it. There is no end goal for evolution in a more intelligent, complex organism. It does not need to show that past species were less intelligent than current ones.



No explanation is given for why MANY mammal species were much much larger only 12 000 years ago (hence the myth of man's past living in caves, where these massive bones have been found most abundantly, as opposed to under ground for dinosaurs).

Just because you don't know what they are doesn't mean they don't exist. The most accepted theory at the moment is that the large mammals were hunted out of existance by humans as they spread across the planet. Either that, or humans out competed them by hunting the same food sources as the large predators.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles


In fact, the Dinosaurs were the original evidence for Evolution, to show that we had evidence of LONG TERM progress in terms of life, and intelligence, which is why dinosaurs were painted as exceedingly simple-minded (up until the raptors from JP).


In fact, they are used to show how life evolves to get adapted to the environment. Dinosaurs were not intelligent animals, they were the best adapted to their time. The raptors showed in JP are completely unbelievables. Firstly, for their size, secondly, velociraptors were intelligent to be dinosaurs, as all carnivores uses to be more intelligent to similar herbivores, but they were not chimps, believe me. I guess Michael Crichton read a little about dinosaurs, said "wow, they are more intelligent than I believed" and wrote a book full of exagerations. The book is cool, I have read it a pair of times, but is fiction, like many things.
And I will try not to talk about the fact they "evolve" from one film to another... In the second movie they look completely different, and in the third they even speak XD
And the previous poster has said the truth, evolution doesn't affirm that newer species must be more intelligent, it states that new species will be more adapted to their environment



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Thanks for the veiled insults. Those are the best.

Paleontology, archaeology, really, thanks for the introduction into these FASCINATING
-ly well controlled areas of research.

Evolution replaced Religion because it was supposed to be Mankind's new rudder, if you will. It replaced our 'special origin' with 'humble truth', that we had descended from lowly apes, but that apes had come from even more primitive creatures that had driven the dinosaurs extinct!

Yes, you KNOW this is how evolution was pitched, don't you? They didn't make allowances, such as Evolution doesn't mean progress, it just means change.

In fact, soon Evolution theory was tied to every area of human research, cultural and societal factors were suddenly subject to it, and subsequently underwent VISIBLE change (England's government dropped the focus on the Monarchy shortly afterwards, you know AFTER Queen Victoria's era).

The question you guys have neatly avoided is, What environmental change happened 12 000 years ago that enabled humans to hunt into extinction animals that had until then thrived, regardless of man's hunting habits.

Hmm, is it that the large animals could no longer find as much food (not because humans ate it, thats a little arrogant to think we caused extinctions the world over, regardless of population density, by eating more, and BEFORE other animals, when clearly nature has shown different species eat what the others DON'T). The example here are antelopes and giraffe. Antelope can eat grass, or they can eat leaves from the lower branches of a tree.

Giraffe eat from the top of the tree. No one here is saying that environment was not a factor in these species SURVIVAL, but was random chaos really their ORIGIN?

I think for the environment to affect development, there needs to be an accepted method of communication, between animals and the Earth, we need to accept that they are literally intertwined, that there are Energies at work that we cannot fully understand, things such as the Group Consciousness of certain species, etc.

The disappearance of large mammals was not due to a single factor, and it definitely was not anything to do with humans.

Cave bear bones have been found, caves have been foud with human bones, paintings, burial rituals, etc. The theory is that the bears scratched up the walls, and while this may be true in some cases, I think it is true that HUMANS copied the behavior of the bears, in a sort of sacred communication with the Earth, using the 'sacred' bear paws to scratch up the walls of their temporary shelter (not permanent residence, as we have been made to believe, the 'cave man' lived primitively, as opposed to being FORCED to seek shelter in caves WORLDWIDE for a period of time).

Any way, maybe some one will realize there have been some sudden changes on this planet in the past, and that there will be sudden changes again one day. That is enough.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by akillesEvolution replaced Religion because it was supposed to be Mankind's new rudder, if you will. It replaced our 'special origin' with 'humble truth', that we had descended from lowly apes, but that apes had come from even more primitive creatures that had driven the dinosaurs extinct!


You're laboring under a few misconceptions, there:
* we're not descended from apes.
* evolution isn't incompatable with religion. Evolution says that an Original Kind (as carried on the Ark) could multiply and be fruitful and become several sub-kinds (wolf-kinds becoming dire wolves, gray wolves, red wolves, and several groups of dogs.)
* religions offer unchanging and unmodifying truths. Evolution gets modified all the time because it's a science. The basics are the same, but it's not a religion.



The question you guys have neatly avoided is, What environmental change happened 12 000 years ago that enabled humans to hunt into extinction animals that had until then thrived, regardless of man's hunting habits.

Well, there wasn't just one "everybody fall down dead" date. They died off over several thousand years, and there's a number of reasons why species go extinct.

For instance, a new species moves in and starts preying (as with the mongooses and the bird population of Hawai'i... many of which are extinct now.

Or weather/climate forces them to change their range and they come into contact with other diseases from animals that originally lived in the area (lions and rabies in Africa, which is causing a die-off in many areas), which kills the species.

Or climate change traps them in an area where survival isn't possible (Death Valley.)

Long term droughts (Africa, lots of areas.)

Volcanic activity over the species territory (as in Montana and the prehistoric rhinos)

Tsunamis can wipe out species that live in coastal areas or on islands.

Human hunting (dodos, passenger pigeon)

Human farming activities, particularly slash and burn (forests of South America, ancient Australia, etc -- and the Native Americans did practice controlled burning in a number of areas to control what plants grew there.)


The disappearance of large mammals was not due to a single factor, and it definitely was not anything to do with humans.

I don't think that anyone can dispute the first, but there's some argument about the second, at least in the case of some species.


Cave bear bones have been found, caves have been foud with human bones, paintings, burial rituals, etc. The theory is that the bears scratched up the walls,


EDIT! I originally thought that this was NOT possible -- animals clawing up cave walls, but I was wrong. Aimals do leave claw and antler marks on cave walls. I thought the stone was too hard, but there's enough good papers on the subject that say it's possible. www2.nature.nps.gov...

Go figger.


and while this may be true in some cases, I think it is true that HUMANS copied the behavior of the bears, in a sort of sacred communication with the Earth, using the 'sacred' bear paws to scratch up the walls of their temporary shelter (not permanent residence, as we have been made to believe, the 'cave man' lived primitively, as opposed to being FORCED to seek shelter in caves WORLDWIDE for a period of time).


Not sure what you're driving at, here. We don't know whether the scratch marks were part of a ritual or whether they were simply decoration.

www.uakron.edu...

It's pretty well accepted that the cave bears were the first animals to be driven into extinction by humans, and that they were not the last animal to die in this way.

There's reason to believe that many species of humans (Neanderthals, Heidelbergensis, etc) hunted cave bears to get control of the caves. It appears to have been a deliberate extinction -- the last one died off in Yugoslavia at the end of a hunt involving perhaps 20 bears and a large number of humans:
www.personal.psu.edu...

So I'm not sure what your point is, here. Evolution isn't inconsistant with religion, and religion and science aren't similar. Human activity did cause the death of a number of species, but was not involved in any species that died earlier than 40,000 years ago. Species go extinct over time.

Could you elaborate on specific things that you find inconsistant?

Meanwhile, there is no evidence of human activity or involvement in the deaths of dinosaurs or that there's any coverup of the paleontological evidence.

[edit on 11-6-2005 by Byrd]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Ok MM,
I have been waiting patiently for a week now. You have promised to post your evidence today. Can we now see it or are we going to have to wait longer?
Just a remider / question.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Ok another twist
read this and it would open your eyes
www.abovetopsecret.com...'.THese reptilians are also called the ancients and are goliath in size.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Planting bones? I have to ask, just where do we get all this time to plant bones, blow up our own buildings, build secret prison camps, fake trips to the moon..........I am not trying to be difficult, I just want to know where all my tax dollars are going and where are all these people that must be on payroll to pull off all these great big coverups?



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
WARTHOG, again you post tuff about the "reptians" and now "ancients" as those what your links are saying are "facts"? These are just people saying stuff over the net with no reall proof. Might they be real? Yes, again anything can said to be real, but unless it is proven to the masses, then where is your proof? I do not understand how you can post about the Lacerta files and now this other thread you put up about the ancients as though they are absolute facts of what is going on? Do you really just believe anything anyone says about "reptilians" as a fact?



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
warthog911, you are just kidding, aren't you?? First, if you read the thread you posted, they say that reptilians are the servants of the "ancients"... also, all those things sound too much like Lovecraft... the next thing you will post is that Cthulu is alive and rules our lives? come on, let's be serious, please, and stop talking about fairy tales, ok?? It's very hard to take seriously all that about planting bones, etc, but it's far easier to believe than all your histories about Lacerta and reptilians and ancients...



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by warthog911
Ok another twist
read this and it would open your eyes
www.abovetopsecret.com...'.THese reptilians are also called the ancients and are goliath in size.


In Ancient Greece it was believed that in the days before God and Giants walked the earth. They even had a "Heros Bone" at the center of most ancient Greek cities. Even the Oracle @ Delphi asked for these hero bones.
Guess what they turned out to be? You'll never guess. lol (sorry for the sarcasm)

Yep, Dino Bones. Here is an ancient story we actually can trace back where they found real evidence that these Myths and Stories where based on Fossils found in ancient times. Fossils that where from giants, Giants Called Dinosaurs.

Reptilian, Ancient, goliath in size? Doesn’t take much to see that they had no idea what type of bones were found and could only imagine the most terrible of things. We are more educated in these things and see them for what they actually are.


www.geocities.com...

Good Quotes from Roman and Greek "Fossil hunters" and what they thought the dino bones were



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
I don't I understand all of what you're trying to say here, but I have gathered one thing, your theory rests on the fact that dinosaurs were killed by a meteor. Right?

Well, if I may I'd like to explain that dinosaurs were not killed by a meteor using the tropical turtle theory.
You have 2 animals, one a dinosaur, let's use a troodon for this example because they were fairly populous at the endof the Creataceous and would were probably one of the more adaptable dinosaurs of the time, the other is a 2 lb tropical pond turtle.
Put them on earth in their natural habitat. Then hit the earth with a meteor, death from above, god's left hook that sort of thing, and cause massive change in the enviroment, lower the average temp by 20 degrees, pollute the air and water.
Now the troodon might die if this happens, he's warm blooded and very adaptable, but this is a big change and he'll probably die.
However, there is no way you tropical turtle survived. He is so specifically adapted to his little ecosystem that a change 1/2 the magnitude would have done him in.

The problem is pond turtles didn't die. So what killed the dinosaurs?

Well as the techtonic plates moved, they're very restless, land bridges were created connecting continent that were previously seperated. Dinosaurs being active and migratory animals used these land bridges and sealed their fate letting loose their native diseases on the lands they travelled to and vice versa. Pond turtles on the other hand didn't care that these bridges were open, they were happy to stay where they were.

Well, there you have it, it was not a meteor but, Larry Brownesque land masses that killed the dinosaurs. If your theory still works good for you, if it doesn't that too bad.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   
did anyone ever consider this as any relationship to 'reptoids'?
if infact they do exist, then perhaps they lived back then too, and the big explosion of whatever it was forced them underground..just another theory



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by akilles

Cave bear bones have been found, caves have been foud with human bones, paintings, burial rituals, etc. The theory is that the bears scratched up the walls, and while this may be true in some cases, I think it is true that HUMANS copied the behavior of the bears, in a sort of sacred communication with the Earth, using the 'sacred' bear paws to scratch up the walls of their temporary shelter (not permanent residence, as we have been made to believe, the 'cave man' lived primitively, as opposed to being FORCED to seek shelter in caves WORLDWIDE for a period of time).



Well humans back then were exactly the same as us, this notion of prehistoric man being stupid is abusured if , i think they may have been smarter then we think , im pretty sure humans back then were nomadic to a ceartain extent but would have had a territory with mabye 5-6 "caves" or other places of shelter , which would only be occupied mabye one at a time.

Bears use claw scraping to mark territory on tree's , cave walls ect, they do this by streching up as high as they can and makeing there mark. If another bear wanders into another bears territory it will size himself up againts the other bears claw marks if he can't reach it he will know the other bear is bigger and most likly move on, its a way of avoiding direct confrontation.

So we humans would'nt like to come back from wintering in the lowlands to find our nice cave up in the high lands near the good game being squatted in by a nasty bear. So mabye with the help of a friend we could hoist ourselves up and make our own bear marks with the aid of bear claws higher than most bears could reach, therefor any bears trying to take up residence would move on.



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
The keyto the solution -
Revolution in Earth Science, end of the world as we know it...
www.google.com...

explained why it went unnoticed...
www.google.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Today for the first time a TV documentary in the illuminati mass media (1) where the main subject is located in the core.

Notes
/1) As usually, in ZDF, the second channel of Geman State Television
Use Google to translate from german to english
www.zdf.de...



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   
So correct me if Im wrong or misunderstand here, the OP is saying that mankind and dinosaurs DID live at the same time but "somehow" the dinosaurs were killed off and evidence of this "killing off" is being supressed by achaeologists? is that right?

and so not to freak out the populace and keep the religious nuts happy, they onventing this theory of a meteor hitting the earth destroying the dinosaurs when there"might" be evidence of another form of extinction of dinosaurs whilst humans were on the scene?

If thats the case, then I can wait for a movie version to come out?

will be watching this thread for hopefully some signs of proof.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
So correct me if Im wrong or misunderstand here, the OP is saying that mankind and dinosaurs DID live at the same time but "somehow" the dinosaurs were killed off and evidence of this "killing off" is being supressed by achaeologists? is that right?

and so not to freak out the populace and keep the religious nuts happy, they onventing this theory of a meteor hitting the earth destroying the dinosaurs when there"might" be evidence of another form of extinction of dinosaurs whilst humans were on the scene?

If thats the case, then I can wait for a movie version to come out?

will be watching this thread for hopefully some signs of proof.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join