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.

 

95 million year old crocodile unearthed... by a kid with a tractor!

page: 3
40
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Two last tidbits... two of the photos I took from my phone.

Here's a peek under the digsite tent. The red flags mark major bones (this scheme was changed later)... areas to NOT step on when moving about under there.

This was taken about midday, after someone brought us tacos and a new shift (the woman and another guy) showed up and sort of gave us a "second wind." You can't see how dirty we all are, but... we're really really filthy.


The two big lumps right below the scale (the piece of white plastic with black bars on it) are the large bone I found this afternoon. We don't know what it is (may be part of the pelvic girdle); it's in really bad shape and crumbled into two pieces as I gently pulled it out. There's a metal post in there that's the post to one of those red flags... to the right is my trowel and brush; the yellow item is a piece of paper with the sector marked on it (so we know which section the bone came from.)

The tiny bone on top of the bottom fragment is part of a croc scute
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Byrd]




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
reply to post by Byrd
 



Nice find.

Not to pick on you specifically but I highly doubt the dating on finds such like this. Just like I doubt the distances given for galatic objects. Yeah I know they are grounded in science, but one has to wonder how accurate the science really is. How can you tell that some light arriving to our planet originates from say 100 light years away? Or that a certian carbon content means something is 95 million years old. I find it incredulous that science can spout out these numbers with a straight face.

How much credibility do you give to such dating?




I agree, I find myself very skeptical of these sorts of INCREDIBLE distances and figures.

But then again, people much smarter than I am are figuring these things out, so maybe I am just an ignorant ape.

In fact I am sure of it.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by vietifulJoe
 


Hmmm,


The relationship between color and brightness was proven using the several thousand stars close enough to earth to have their distances measured directly.


They measured distance to stars directly with what and how?
One would be under the impression that not all stars is like our sun and burn yellow, so if a star was closer but burned in a darker color, it is supposed to be farther away ?

Like the c14 dating only work on dinos that are younger than 50.000 years?
How many dinos have they tested this on that are younger then 50.000 years , and are there inconsitencies in the messurements ?

Like a dino they tested had skeleton of 29.000 years and skin that was 45.000 years. ?? just asking caus it sounds non-reliable...



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Direct method is triangulation. * first technique on the same link you quoted from



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by vietifulJoe
 


triangular from one place in space ? like 3d on a paper..
Again, makes no sence !! Sorry !!!



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 



...triangular from one place in space ?


If you don't understand the math involved, there is no way to explain it to you.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather
Like the c14 dating only work on dinos that are younger than 50.000 years?
How many dinos have they tested this on that are younger then 50.000 years , and are there inconsitencies in the messurements ?


None.

Dinosaurs died about 60 *million* years ago. A fossil is something produced when bone and skin and organic parts (like shells) are replaced by other minerals. There's no carbon there to be dated.


Like a dino they tested had skeleton of 29.000 years and skin that was 45.000 years. ?? just asking caus it sounds non-reliable...


You might have misread the age in the article. They can't carbon date dinsoaurs.

They also might be two different animals.

I do know of a few cases of mummification in dinosaurs and parts of dinos, but they are NOT carbon dated. They are dated by "we know when these type animals lived (which gives us a "window" of 50 *million* years or so) and then they start narrowing that down by looking at which formation the dino was found in (and the clues in it, such as volcanic ash). Then they narrow that window further by looking at the material around the dinosaur (such as the remains of plants and what kind of shape they're in.

So it's looking at clues (just like they do in a murder investigation) to narrow down a "window of time."



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join