Man and Dinosaurs lived together, is this evidence?

Is evolution teaching backwards? Im not saying "Oh God exists, the LORD will JUDGE us all or anything" - Im just trying to simply say to evolutionists that it could be backwards. Remember we are on a conspiracy site!

These amazing pictures show man with dinosaurs. What is your take on this? I'd like to know, thanks!

www.omniology.com...





[edit on 2-11-2008 by Gillespie]

reply to post by Gillespie


Those are pretty interesting if everything about them is authentic.
not a one line post

The origin of the figurines is highly questionable

The very circumstances from which the figures first appeared are dubious. Julsrud claims that he paid the farmers for every figure they brought him. This alone gives the farmers motive to create their own figures and disguise them as ancient artifacts.

More here:
Source

[edit on 2-11-2008 by Phage]

you know those "dinos" in the link are statues right?
not very convinccing at all.

Wouldint mind getting some more confirmation on this, the site looks a bit dodgy, but its interesting none the less, but whether or not man lived with the dinosaurs there is no doubt in my mind that man was here thousands and hundreds of thousands of years before we are told, there is MORE than enough evidence.

As Nubians, The negroidic race on this planet had all of the recorded knowledge of Humans living amongst Dinosaurs, The last meteorite shower that took place on this planet was 2-3 million years ago in which killed the Dinosaurs that were feeding on the people, The Eloheem Anunnaki caused this meteorite shower to happen from NIBIRU so that Man could be the succesor in this 3rd dimensional galaxy, Animals became smaller upon this planet, Evolution. Remember Godzilla vs. Rodan?, The Japanese transported Godzilla from a spacecraft called Planet X to go and kick Rodan's, You know what. The Japanese were acting out the role of what the Anunnaki can do from their spacecrafts. There here!!!!.

Well, they're charming and funny and most definitely South American in design, but the dinosaurs bear as much relation to real dinosaurs as a picture of Mickey Mouse's "Pluto the dog" bears to a real dog.

Take the sauropods. The sauropods in the area were Saltasaurus en.wikipedia.org... and Alamosaurus. I'm working on the neckbone of an alamosaurus (the pictures on this one are wrong en.wikipedia.org... )... the one single neckbone is about as big as two kitchen chairs placed back-to-back and she was almost as tall as a 3 story house when she died and about as long as 2 school buses. She had no spines on her back (none of the sauropods had spines) and has long "ribs" along her neckbones which gave her a fairly rigid neck. No sauropod could have twisted its neck to touch its flank.


(in hunting for a picture of cervical ribs to show you, I came across my own photos of my alamosaurus vertebra with the cervical rib "in situ"...being used by someone else. farm3.static.flickr.com... Truly weird. The site that it was linked to does alamosaurus sculptures, all very inaccurate (charming but inaccurate) with their long necks entwined.) My photos are over here: www.flickr.com... )

BUT... I digress.

Furthermore, the dinos shown are the popular ones, so we get dinos that died some 100 million years before the others arose being shown as being contemporaries.

Cute, yes. Touristy, yes. Would I have a piece like that for my living room -- you betcha! It combines an art style that I love with a group of animals that I love.

But is it a representative of something true? No.



[edit on 2-11-2008 by Byrd]

Originally posted by SuperSlovak
you know those "dinos" in the link are statues right?

not very convinccing at all.

You didn't check out the site fully, not just "statues; whatever you were focusing on by reading, this site displays a connection between man and dinosaurs, mans footprint with dinosaur and the old cretaceous limestone is even more presenting.

Originally posted by Gillespie
You didn't check out the site fully, not just "statues; whatever you were focusing on by reading, this site displays a connection between man and dinosaurs, mans footprint with dinosaur and the old cretaceous limestone is even more presenting.

I had a look at the rest of the site.

The "man and dino track" is an outright hoax. No human footprint looks like that (really -- step in some sand and see for yourself), and that's not the way it looks when you step on the track of something (even a fairly deep track.) Secondly, here's what a therapod track really looks like:
www.alicehenderson.com...

Animals when they walk (and humans) on different surfaces NEVER leave a flat footprint like something just stamped down and then lifted up a foot. There's foldover of mud, there's difference in weight, and if you know what you are looking at, you can see if the thing was running or walking.

Carved footprints look just like someone took a big fake foot and stomped it down in the mud and lifted it right out. They get the dynamics all wrong.

Try it for yourself someday in wet sand (make a footprint, then on a different track, walk and run and trot and jump. You'll see how different it is.)

I try to maintain an open mind, but what I saw on the pages I skimmed were some known frauds such as the Ica Stones, and recycled material from creationist museums. Since I work with some of the types of material he talks about, I could look at it differently than many people do. But there's nothing there to challenge the things I see every day.

It would be interesting if there were, but it's just the same old recycled stuff, tied up with a slightly different rant about "godlessness." Even the "Lucy" stuff is pretty bad (particularly when they offer as "proof" a cartoon. And yes, I read it.)

I checked with the paleontologists that I work for as a volunteer (these guys are the ones in the "polar dinosaurs" special that was on in October). The photos came out this summer, when the "Creation Science Museum" announced that they'd bought the footprint from a man named Delk who was selling it to cover his medical bills:
www.weatherforddemocrat.com...

But even Delk's daughter (who studied geology) was doubtful about them:
salon.glenrose.net...

A museum curator comments on the pseudo-scientific "analysis" that the rock went through (for one thing, a CAT scan isn't powerful enough) : stonesnbones.blogspot.com...

Finally, here's another piece from a Salon magazine blogger and it shows the fake and a "real footprint" (to be honest, the "real footprint" is a cast of a therapod from Alaska and I know this particular one because it's in our museum collection. "My paleontologists" found it (I work as a volunteer for the guys who were featured on the 'Polar Dinosaurs' program on Nova last month.)
salon.glenrose.net...

In brief, the history is that when Glen Rose fell on hard times during and after the depression, they discovered that fossil dino tracks sold well. After they ran out of real tracks, at least two men started carving them. This one appears to be the one that was "ditched" (according to the carver's daughter) when the Smithsonian wanted to come to town to look at it.

More stuff can be found by reading and checking out the links.

The guy who did these carvings always makes the same mistake with human footprints... he carves the toes too long (WAY too long). Here's a beach footprint... notice that the toes almost appear to be separate from the foot itself; just dots on top of the pad of the foot: farm1.static.flickr.com...

Here's a page of wonderful REAL dino footprints:
www.soton.ac.uk...

So... it's a real Texas Souvenier but not a real human walking over the imprint of a real dinosaur.