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.

 

Worlds Largest Dinosaur Remains

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   
I found it some time ago and realised that we mine a fluorescent ore from where its plates lie like those on the classic Stegosaurus




now food for thought this thing is something like 40 miles long and lived well before the dinosaurs we know of in a time when everything was giant. its vertabra are still visible today take alook at my work in progress and see what you think any questions just ask and Ill try to answer them from my point of view.




www.blumation.com...

ISA

[edit on 5-6-2008 by isaeyeallseeing]

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/6/2008 by Mirthful Me]

[edit on 5-6-2008 by isaeyeallseeing]




posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I don't see it. At all.

Living in England I can think of dozens of more likely explanations for a lot of your evidence. The intestines could be the boundaries of farmland, remains of old walls (there are oodles of them in the countryside), nature trails, fences etc etc.
As for the actual 'dinosaur' itself it just looks like a group of hills to me (also something very common in England).

And I find the idea very unlikely.
Firstly a 40 mile dinosaur would eat so much in one day that it would devastate the local ecosystem. An elephant eats enough in one day to cause trouble for farmers so something MUCh bigger would be very 'problematic'. I can see it either tearing up hundreds of acres of grassland and woodland which would take several years to begin thriving once again and starving itself.

Secondly unless the dinosaur was an ocean dweller it would probably have a very hard time moving and even breathing. An even harder time if it was a bipedal dino. The reason all the HUGE dinosaurs were quadrupedal was to spread the weight they carried over a greater surface area, thereby lessening the amount of weight each leg had to carry. I think a bipedal creature would have a hard time moving.

Thirdly, what did it eat? At several miles up even big animals (relatively speaking of course) must be hard to perfectly focus on. Granted it could outrun its prey but in the time it took it to reach down the prey could just run. And if it was a herbivore, it would need even more food to survive. As I said before elephants need to eat 200 kg of food a day. And elephants aren't that big. A 40 mile long animal would need to eat at least 150 times that much.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   
JackofBlades is right, unless of course there were trees that would grows through the stratosphere



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Okay, Let's say that such a creature did exist. Then what sort of population would there have had to be? For it to produce offspring it would have to have a mate. And so it didn't start inbreeding, there would have to be multiple "Couples". Secondly, as Jack of Blades pointed out. It would have an immensely hard time moving. Plus could you imagine the sheer weight this would have exerted on Earth?

Personally I can't see it would have existed.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Isnt the concept of the decay of dinosaurs based upon what we have found already and doesnt something small erode and decay alot slower than something that is much much larger its size meant it was practically armour plated litterally to protect itself against the elements.




Scientists today announced the discovery of an extraordinarily preserved "dinosaur mummy" with much of its tissues and bones still encased in an uncollapsed envelope of skin


news.nationalgeographic.com...

ISA



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Interesting on that last hyperlink, which is news.nationalgeographic.com...

Here is the relevant quote:

For now, the team continues to examine the rare specimen, which included preserved tendons and ligaments, and to prepare scientific articles on the find for publication.


If these "preserved tendons and ligaments" were ACTUAL FLESH, and not petrified, that shoves evolution right out the door. Flesh cannot survive for very long, even in "mummified" states. (BTW, the time frames I am speaking of are relative. 10,000 years is a long time for mummified remains, but dinosaurs allegedly lived "millions and millions" of years ago)

Another interesting thing is that article has links to "pictures" of the mummy dinosaur and it's skin, but that link goes clearly to what is a drawing/cgi. You'd think archaeologists would learn what a digital camera was. Unless, of course, they realized what the implications would be of finding an actual mummified dinosaur.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Excellent point Sir


ISA



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


The fossil is encased in stone, its a mummy of a hadrosaur, that was then fossilized. On occasion it does happen that some flesh is preserved along with the skeleton is extremely well preserved fossils. In this instance the mummified body was actually fossilized as well. I think they've found a couple now.
The CGI is formed from scans made with, I think a MRI, but I could be wrong. Similar to how they examine the Egyptian mummies without unwrapping them.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join