Titor, Reptilians, and a Smoking Gun...

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 03:38 AM
link   
It is NOT April 1st yet, but I cannot believe that MSNBC's story on "70,000,000 Year Old T-Rex Soft Tissue" is not a hoax. Come on, there is NO way soft tissue could have avoided decomposition for that long!

I see several possibilities:

1. hoax; or
2. cover story to hide existance of cloned Tyrannosaurus Rex a'la Jurassic Park; or
3. cover story to hide the existance of a working time machine.

Talk to me, people. I do not Want To Believe...




posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 03:52 AM
link   
The News item is dated 28th March 2005 - and can't remember hearing anything else about it since.

Sounds like a hoax to me - because if it isn't surely someone else would have picked up on it during the last 12 months.

Interested to hear what others think.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Or the fact may be.... that its not a hoax at all..then again, trusting mainstream media information controlled by the elite can lead to disinformation...

Either way, you can look at the possibilities of linking this story to a source of information I came across a while back.

That there are in fact dinosaurs that STILL roam on earth, it is said that they are off the islands in the south americas.... fondly enough, protected by the tribes that live there....... and that the story of 'preserved' soft tissue may be tissue from these living creatures!

I have noticed something with regards to movies and real life and a pattern by many people that use the same old excuse.....that as soon as a possible "unbelievable" situation is brought up as a movie.......that it has to be discredited and considered 'science fiction'.

So dinosaurs being real? Jurassic park being a movie - then they must not exist
Mind-control and programming, Manchurian candidate released - then it must not exist.
Travelling through time via time machines - Back to the future/The Time Machine etc... - then it must not exist.
Travelling to other planets - Contact, Stargate etc.. - then it must not exist.
Aliens - X-Files, Star Trek, Star Wars, war of worlds, etc... - then it must not exist.

and finally.....

Tombraider, National Treasure, about global elite - then it must not exist.

So I kind of take the other approach to people who say 'oh thats just science fiction' and look a little deeper into it....... the reason some of these movies are made is because the thought was originally there in the first place, a thought that had to come from possible experience and knowledge of fact....A thought that has to be discredited through 'fiction' and not likely a possibility...

I see that these movies or books or whatever you read, can give an indication of 'full disclosure' or on a smaller scale, at least some truth in the matter....... so basically, keep an open mind, the answer is really right under your nose!

Kind Regards
Merger



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamesmichael
The News item is dated 28th March 2005 - and can't remember hearing anything else about it since.

Sounds like a hoax to me - because if it isn't surely someone else would have picked up on it during the last 12 months.

Interested to hear what others think.



It's not a hoax, my dad gave me a newspaper clipping of the article. Not fake. And this is not new, I heard about this two years ago. That's when my dad called me on the phone and told me, "There's really interesting article I want to show you about T.Rex tissue."

[edit on 13-3-2006 by whitelightwolf]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   
How many hoaxes have hit the newspapers before or the news? Apparently everyday as everyone keeps pointing fingers, Iraq is a hoax, Israel is a hoax, someone's now saying 9/11 was a hoax too...what?...We have invisi-shields now? Someone has watched too much Dragonball Z


Right, so, we have this MSNBC Article stating that we found soft tissue of a T.Rex. Well...folks...this would be quite the discovery now wouldn't it? Perhaps the biggest thing since hyperspeed travel? What are the potentials that we wouldn't have heard more about this though?

whitelight, respectfully, why do you "assume" this is not a hoax? What's encouraged you to believe it is real? Is the only reason because it was in the newspaper, or is it because you want to believe that it is true?



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Here is an update to the story printed just last month:






Proteins could reveal new dinosaur secrets: Soft-tissue discovery opens a biochemical frontier for paleontologists

Someday, biochemists will be able to figure out what dinosaurs ate, what diseases afflicted them and how they were related to each other — all by analyzing a bit of organic goo.

At least those are the kinds of tests that could theoretically be carried out in a new field dubbed "paleoproteomics." Paleontologists are becoming increasingly intrigued by the possibilities in the wake of last year's discovery that some of a Tyrannosaurus rex's soft tissues — perhaps its blood cells, blood vessels or fibrous cells — could survive the process of fossilization intact.

No one is saying yet that the DNA of a dinosaur could be reconstructed, as it was in the fictional "Jurassic Park" movies. DNA molecules are made up of long chains that degrade over time. Under the best circumstances, it's hard for DNA to survive thousands of years, let alone millions. It's more likely that shorter-chain protein molecules could be recovered from the soft tissues. But even those molecules could tell a lot about how dinosaurs lived.

More...



EDIT:Forgot the link.


[edit on 13-3-2006 by loam]



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
It is NOT April 1st yet, but I cannot believe that MSNBC's story on "70,000,000 Year Old T-Rex Soft Tissue" is not a hoax. Come on, there is NO way soft tissue could have avoided decomposition for that long!

Yes and no. There is no real tissue there, its a partly mangled organic remain. There are structures within it that are, in a sense, the remains of tissue structure. Also, notice the date, 2005. This was a discovery announced at the 2004 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology meeting infact. What Dr. Schweizter did was treat the fossil with chemicals that would remove minerals, and what remained is that incredible find. She has a history of recovering and finding bio-chemcal materials and tissue-like structures from fossils. Other people have had success in getting proteins and the like, but she's had the most spectacular success.





top topics
 
0

log in

join