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.

 

Did humans coexist with Dinosaurs? any evidence suggesting, maybe?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by RuneSpider
reply to post by Howie47
 


Well, I'll have to speak about what i know from here. The sauropods did NOT have long frlexible necks. Their necks were long, and move in a general up and down sort of way, this was discovered when scientists actually examined the necks instead of just assembling them how they wanted to, basically. Think about like with iguanodon, how lon it took to discover it was a primarily bipedal critter, with pointed thum instead of a horn on it's snout.
I know these are apparently proven to not be fakes, but it looks a awful like some of the designs made by people before wereally began to study dinosaur remains and their probable musculature based on evidence left on their bones and well preserved fossils. Also, most of these show popular dinosaur images, sauropods with graceful necks, the triceratops, pteradactyl, stegosaur, ect. we never see any of the odder ones, or that weren't on Jurassic Park.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by RuneSpider]


Could this be because, the most recognizable Dino's are usually shown.
There are 15,000 stones at the main museum. Rich Peruvians are believed to have their own collections. Hundreds maybe thousands have been sold to tourist. A collection was even sent to Spain, in the 20th century.
Also the artwork is not necessarily made to leave scientific depictions of
Dinos, for modern man. But are artistically drawn and positioned to fit into pictures or on individual rocks.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by Howie47]




posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


You''d have been better off with some of the other links, that one looks more like my attempts to draw a horse. the musculature, tapered at the front, wider to the back, then narrows to the tail, of the current understanding (which has changes since they found the dino mummy recently, showing dinosaurs apparently had more muscle than were originally attributed them ) versus this very skinny model. The anklyosaur they show looks more like a 'gator snapping turtly than a anky, and the apatosaurs couldn't stand like that, their bodies weren't designed for it.
Look, while these were fairly neat dinosaurs, except for the T-rex, albertasaurus, a;asaurus, gigantasaurus, and one or three I canthink of but have no name for, there were no giant meat eaters. most of the giant herbivorse were sauropods. What I want to know is, where are the raptors?



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


So, what I want to know is, where are the other dinosaurs? Or the other megafauna that also would have pparently thrived at the same time? Raptors had the place of wolves in this ecosystem, so where did wolves fit in? Likelyhood is, rptors were at least as clever as wolves, while also having something in the ways of arms and long, fingerlike claws. They ould have been a enormous threat to people. Then there's the one I think I mentioned like a bizzare reptillian ostrich with four claws on it's arms. Protoceratops, with no horns, variouse types of ceratopians with many number of horns,.
There were, like iguanadon, a multitude of spcies of bipedal plant eaters, some that looked very similar to meat eaters. There were creatures that resembled mammals, but were distinctly reptillian.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


Following the dino's, it took a while for life to really pick back up, but then you had the megafauna, giant wolves, sloths, birds, both flying, and non flying. You had the beginning of horses, really small to start. The fact is, like in any instance, there is more dead life than there is living. Basically, there probably would be enough room on the planet for even just two of every creature, even if you threw in a extra continent or two. Then you'd take out some of the room on the oceans, which would have even more life.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
O Ye of Little Faith

This thread continues? ATS never ceases to amaze me.

Howie47's black dinosaur stones are rather well-known fakes. They've become a bit of a cottage industry now, apparently. His Cambodian 'stegosaurus' is some local boar or maybe a Borneo rhinoceros, but it certainly isn't a stegosaurus. More here. But at least Howie47 is trying.

NewWorldOver, one the other hand, has done his customary disappearing act when challenged to submit evidence for his claims.

woodwytch appears to retain an open mind, having been genuinely misinformed in the past. Let's see how this goes as the thread progresses.

dave420 has the right of it. Some of us are really interested in these subjects -- we're not just dabbling in them to find support for our beliefs -- so we've studied across the board, not just focused our learning on the occasional oddity or discrepancy. So when we say we know what we're talking about, it's because we actually do. And what we know is that

there is not one piece, not the tiniest fragment of evidence to suppose that dinosaurs and humans ever coexisted.

On the contrary, there is a mountain -- no, an entire Himalaya -- of evidence to show that they did not.

But some people don't care for truth; they just want support for what they believe.

I have a question for such people, one that never seems to receive a satisfactory answer. If the reality of what you believe can only be grasped by faith ('only believe and you shall be saved', etc.), why are you so busy trying to find evidence to support it? If faith is what it takes, what's the good of proof to anyone?

Isn't your faith strong enough to stand without proof?

If anyone has a worthwhile answer (that hasn't been beaten to pulp and kicked out of the ring a thousand times before), please enlighten me. Don't post it on this thread; use an appropriate thread in one of the appropriate forums, or create a thread yourself, and u2u me a link. I'd be very, very interested to read what you say.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


There's also the teeny tiny little matter of time....about a 65,000,000 year time difference....did anyone else mention this?

As to, do humans co-exist with dinosaurs? Yes, even today we do. We call them 'birds' now....



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Ya also gotta look at the plants of the time and what we evolved eating, for all we know the types of plants we ate weren't around yet.
Just a side note.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Yeah, I think he was talking about birds and reptiles.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I'll admit the jury is still out on the ICA stones that depict Dino's. Also the clay statues from Mexico.
The stegosaurus on the temple at Cambodia, is a different matter.
Where do we see any other animal with plates running along it's back? The general shape of the animal depicted is also very Dino like. The thickness of it's legs. The way the tail lays down to the ground. The only part that is off is the .. The poss, or how a stegosauri carried itself
is purely speculation to this day.
Would a stegosaurus be a domestic animal, that the artist would have been very familiar with? Or was it seen once in the jungle, from a distance? Or describe to the artist by hunters? Those are much more likely
scenarios.
That this is a bore with plates on it's back! Now that is self delusion!

The big problem with proving Dino's and men coexisted. Is the poisoned
atmosphere of academia. The administrators are chosen only if they actively promote the current official view of history. They also actively demote any evidence that is contrary.
The powers that be. Want society to believe that mankind is ascending.
We are on our way! This is considered the positive view. Anything else is
to negative to consider. The TRUTH has no place!

Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link



[edit on 9-4-2008 by Jbird]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I have started a new thread about the Cambodian Stegosaur. I think this needs to be discussed further. For any that do truely have an open www.abovetopsecret.com... mind!

[edit on 9-4-2008 by Howie47]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


Actually they have since proven that dinosaurs generally held their tails aloft.
It's a simple question of looking at how the muscles attached to the bones.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


Like I said before, it looks a lot like a land tortoise. The bumps and rises pn the back resemble it. Keep in mind, the anky was a lot like tortoises, may have been related even.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


Actually turtles existed at that time, I don't think their related.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Yes, and monkeys exist with humans, and they are distantly related. I didn't mean close relatvies, but the anky and tortoises share similarities, at the least it's convergent eveloution.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


Just because they share similarities doesn't mean they are related.
Well all life is related in some capacity but not a very close one.

I could see why shells would be very handy back then and now.
Doesn't mean they are closely related.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Which is why i also said at the least, it shows convergent eveloution. I know that there were tortoises around at the time, I also know that the anky had many similarities, so it's possible at one point they shared a common ancestor, with the turtles staying small and becoming more heavily armored for the most part, the anky's growing larger with more of a jointed armor on it's back.
But this is ust me guessing, not a statment of fact.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


Oh I know man. Just offering my thoughts.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


Where do we see any other animal with plates running along its back?

Immediately above your 'stegosaurus' on the same decorative frieze. Two carvings, one of a water buffalo and one of a deer, both showing similar 'plates'.

And guess what, they're both on display at one of your favourite web pages. Go and have a look!



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I looked. Didn't see what your talking about. Maybe you need to link the exact pictures!? Or maybe your seeing things??



Possibly a couple different sized rocks (behind) the water buffalo?



Where as the stegs plates run down his back on too his tail!
No comparison.

[edit on 11-4-2008 by Howie47]



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 

Thanks for posting the image; I couldn't be bothered.

I see the 'scales' even if you don't, and I'm sure other members will. Remember these are heavily weathered carvings; in fact, if you stood in front of that pillar in sunlight, you wouldn't be able to see nearly as much detail as appears in any of the photos.

A reality check for you: just how ancient do you think Ta Prohn is? It may surprise you to learn that it was built in 1186CE. Just eight hundred years ago. Are you suggesting that stegosauri (that don't look in the least like real stegosauri) were roaming Indochina while Richard the Lionheart was ascending the throne of England?

You velly funny man.

[edit on 12-4-2008 by Astyanax]




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join