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.

 

Are 'Aliens' Dinosaurs & Survivers of an Earthly Cataclysm Returning Home?

page: 7
69
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by funbox


again. just as long as its not this guy Phil Harding, hes been a big headed gloating fool ever since he found his real dinosauridhomonid, whilst out looking for Roman pottery in Sussex.




if he found fossilized dinobipeds remains , there wouldnt be a hd camera big enough to get his big fat cornish head on the screen.

funbox


well I agree with the big fat head bit but he's not Cornish

Born in Oxford, but brought up in Wiltshire source
I'm not having the Cornish linked to him in ANY way!




posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by Aeons


With this thread, I was trying to highlight the fact that - despite not having proof - the theory is scientifically viable. I genuinely believe that this idea should be taken more seriously.


By the way by not having any proof whatso ever makes this theory scientifically irrelevant, not viable. When you have proof it will be taken more seriously.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
The dinosauriods are reptillians :/



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Versa

Originally posted by funbox


again. just as long as its not this guy Phil Harding, hes been a big headed gloating fool ever since he found his real dinosauridhomonid, whilst out looking for Roman pottery in Sussex.




if he found fossilized dinobipeds remains , there wouldnt be a hd camera big enough to get his big fat cornish head on the screen.

funbox




well I agree with the big fat head bit but he's not Cornish

Born in Oxford, but brought up in Wiltshire source
I'm not having the Cornish linked to him in ANY way!


im glad you noticed, although rather disappointed that you failed elsewhere
maybe a few pints of Cider will put some colour in them pallid little cheeks of yours

funbox



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Sorry, but the premise of this thread rests almost entirely on the idea that reptiles would have necessarily followed the course of evolution that man followed before evolving from his mammallian ancestors.

No it does not. The thread suggests that dinosaurs not reptiles may have. You are aware that dinosaurs are not reptiles aren't you?

Some dinosaurs may have been warm blooded like mammals. Many were bipedal with relatively large brains and possible similar vocal abilities to birds. If conditions existed in the cretaceous that gave rise to modern apes then dinosaurs were perfectly placed to evolve in a similar way to the way primates evolved into humans.

However, there may have been the possibility that a reptile could have been similarly well placed but that will have to wait until I can be bothered to write another thread.

edit on 26/2/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by funbox
im glad you noticed, although rather disappointed that you failed elsewhere
maybe a few pints of Cider will put some colour in them pallid little cheeks of yours
funbox


Oh I fail all the time I have a very small brain that is capable of making very big mistakes
and I'm not a Wurzel and don't drink Zider, if your offering a white wine or a lager would do very well thank you



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slipdig1
By the way by not having any proof whatso ever makes this theory scientifically irrelevant, not viable. When you have proof it will be taken more seriously.


You clearly have no idea about science. If we had proof, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a fact.

A theory is viable if it is scientifically possible - which this theory is. The whole point of a theory is it can be tested scientifically - which this can.

The theory remains viable until proven or proven to be wrong. It may need modifying or dispensing with if it does not fit the evidence. Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence to a real scientist.

As you have no evidence on way or the other your statement is completely unscientific.
edit on 26/2/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
A theory is to speculate and make testable assumptions about a thing which is capable of being examined as it is real, cohert and observable or measureable.

You are not suggesting a theory. It is not based on anything real, cohert, observable or measurable. It is impossible to test, and rests upon nothing.

You are suggesting a thought experiment. A set of consecutive "what-ifs" on "what-ifs" where you have to take the first set of "what-ifs" as being presumed to be true to then add more "what-ifs" onto them.

Now, this sort of thought experiment can be very fun and interesting - but you're falling into the trap of believing your original "what-if" because you've found a really fun and almost believable story to make it seem logical. That still leaves it as neither true, nor even theoretical.

You need to be clear with yourself on your thought experiments. Believing your own whimsy because it is compelling does not make it a THEORY.

edit on 2011/2/26 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
A theory is to speculate and make testable assumptions about a thing which is capable of being examined as it is real, cohert and observable or measureable.

You are not suggesting a theory. It is not based on anything real, cohert, observable or measurable. It is impossible to test, and rests upon nothing.

You are suggesting a thought experiment. A set of consecutive "what-ifs" on "what-ifs" where you have to take the first set of "what-ifs" as being presumed to be true to then add more "what-ifs" onto them.

Now, this sort of thought experiment can be very fun and interesting - but you're falling into the trap of believing your original "what-if" because you've found a really fun and almost believable story to make it seem logical. That still leaves it as neither true, nor even theoretical.

You need to be clear with yourself on your thought experiments. Believing your own whimsy because it is compelling does not make it a THEORY.

edit on 2011/2/26 by Aeons because: (no reason given)


bloody hell who stole the jam out of your doughnut m8! seems to be a little bit of rage from your direction



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
No, they're [the greys] evolved, time-traveling dolphins.

Think about this for any length of time and it becomes quite obvious.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
First of all you're assuming there're aliens here on earth or visiting? I'm not.

But I wnat to bring up something else. Life started in the oceans. Then it migrated to the land. Why is it that humans, the most intelligent, are on land, when life started in the ocean and still exists there? Shouldn't the most evolved life be in the ocean since life has evolved there longer?

Does it matter that life evolved on the land? We're closest to the sun. Things are less dense here. Does that somehow matter? Why couldn't human-counterparts exist at the bottom of the ocean? They might not look human, but is there something that prevents intelligent life from existing at the extreme depths of the ocean? Kind of like in Abyss? Abyss was a fun movie, but does it have any reality to back it up? Well, this idea I came up with about the ocean - Abyss never crossed my mind.

And what about panspermia? The idea that life came from space. Where is that life being produced? In intergalactic clouds? Inside comets? Or is it coming from planets that get pummeled by asteroids? It's important to figure out where it comes from because, again, it came from somewhere else just like we did - we came from the ocean. If life came from elsewhere, then something else probably has had more time to evolve than us. Which means maybe we're not the most evolved?

I'm aware that being the most evolved does not mean being the most intelligent. If I recall, monkeys are more evolved than we're. But we're more intelligent. They have better short-term memory than we do. We have better long-term memory. That explains our language and other complex skills that require long-term memory. But you would expect that, on average, more evolved life would have a few examples of very intelligent life. And, more likely, that life is older than us.
edit on 27-2-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander

After 65 million years it is highly unlikely that it would be recognisable, even if anything of it remained.

If they were smart enough they would very likely have had a plan to survive.



We find only perfect fossiles but no signs of any constructions let alone remarcable "UFO" technology.

Anyway, Earth must've been a more interesting place for the aliens visit during the time of dinosaurs.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by Slipdig1
By the way by not having any proof whatso ever makes this theory scientifically irrelevant, not viable. When you have proof it will be taken more seriously.


You clearly have no idea about science. If we had proof, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a fact.

A theory is viable if it is scientifically possible - which this theory is. The whole point of a theory is it can be tested scientifically - which this can.

The theory remains viable until proven or proven to be wrong. It may need modifying or dispensing with if it does not fit the evidence. Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence to a real scientist.

As you have no evidence on way or the other your statement is completely unscientific.
edit on 26/2/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)
My theory that we came from the moon is not of the same calibre that Einstein's theories are. By far. I'm a retard by comparison. His theories have far more supporting evidence and invested brain power. It's not 100%, true. They're still trying to prove his theory wrong - and they will have many chances. But to be more specific, all theories are theories, but not all theories are equally trustworthy.

The best theories are testable, though. How can you prove the theory wrong that god is real?
edit on 27-2-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by Slipdig1
By the way by not having any proof whatso ever makes this theory scientifically irrelevant, not viable. When you have proof it will be taken more seriously.


You clearly have no idea about science. If we had proof, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be a fact.

A theory is viable if it is scientifically possible - which this theory is. The whole point of a theory is it can be tested scientifically - which this can.

The theory remains viable until proven or proven to be wrong. It may need modifying or dispensing with if it does not fit the evidence. Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence to a real scientist.

As you have no evidence on way or the other your statement is completely unscientific.
edit on 26/2/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)




As i have seen it stated many times on here it is not up to me to provide proof that it is false. It is up to you to provide proof that it's true. This is all purely speculation. You have no evidence, nothing that evens comes close to saying that this could have happened. All I see in a highly speculative theory, made up from your imagination and based on highly speculative, unproven evidence.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
A theory is to speculate and make testable assumptions about a thing which is capable of being examined as it is real, cohert and observable or measureable.

You are not suggesting a theory. It is not based on anything real, cohert, observable or measurable. It is impossible to test, and rests upon nothing.

Are you just here to waste my time with wilful ignorance? That is bunk and I suspect you know it.

THEORY/HYPOTHESIS: The dinosaurs, in the at least 170 million years of evolution, may have evolved a species that was bipedal, with an opposable thumb, large brain and good linguistic skills. That species would have abilities comparable to modern humans and may have developed culture, civilization and possible technology. The species may have survived the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous.

The idea does not rest upon nothing as you would like the readers to believe.

FACTS: Dinosaurs over time were gradually developing larger brains. There were dinosaurs with opposable 'thumbs.' The species that dinosaurs are thought to have evolved from is believed to have been bipedal. Birds, which evolved from dinosaurs are intelligent and linguistically advanced. It is known that the characteristics listed in the hypothesis have already been shown to have evolved from dinosaurs.

TESTABLE: We could find evidence of the remains of a civilization. We could discover the descendants of the hypothetical species on Earth or in space. We could discover tools in the Cretaceous layers. A civilization descended from the dinosaurs could make contact with us at any time.

The evidence, if it exists, may be gone or hidden - we do not know. There are rumours of hidden evidence around the world. There are also rumours that an advanced species like this exists and there is massive cover-up to hide the facts from the public.

You may wish to pretend this is not a theory. You may hate that your cherished beliefs can be challenged by intelligent reasoning. Tough luck - that's what free thinking is all about. If it offends you then ATS is the wrong site for you.

CONCLUSION: This is a testable hypothesis. The evidence may be difficult to find, not recognised or covered up. However that does not indicate that it cannot be tested, it simply means that it may be difficult to test.
edit on 27/2/11 by Pimander because: add bold type

edit on 27/2/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by greybeard1
There are a lot of stories told of people accidentally discovering underground caves which run endlessly deep, and they run into large reptilian humanoid beings. I wouldn't discount the possibility that these beings started as top-siders, and moved underground millions of years ago. Thus, little or no fossile record. You know what they say, truth can be stranger than fiction. Just sayin'.


Yes, I agree. I myself heard such a story from my Grandfather who worked in the coal mines of W.Va. He called them "lizards standing up like men." Then there are the other stories, like Clifford Stone's story, and Phil Schnider's story. There is just too much to discount. I have asked myself the same questions many times, and made a thread on this theory here:
Were Humans Created by Reptilians?



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by HazyChestNutz
.....*sigh* These dinosaurioids are REPTILLIANS. They can be mistaken as dragons/dinosaurs. The Reptillians are the ones controlling groups like Illuminati and the Masons. The "satanic cult" is actually a reptillian contact.


I agree here, HazyChestNutz, we asre talking about Reptilians/Draco here, and no amount of denial will make them go away. The Reptilians are running things, and they have been for a very long time. They made a treaty with Eisenhower in 1954 through the Grays from Zeta, and some have been living underground since long before man walked this world. I believe them and their human minions to be the Hidden Hand of government.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


I had no idea that being logical was the same as being hateful. Can you expand upon that?

For the contention of the OP to be testable you have to ASSUME that everything in your post MUST be true. However, it isn't in any way proved. It isn't even beyond being imagined.

Do you truly not see the folly in believing that your imagined theory is correct without anything to base it on, then to back it up with further expansion on that whimsy to think how your original idea could pan out over time?

You're proving a what-if by making a more exciting what-if to prove it. That's not a theory. That's a story.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Are now you got it right. It is a hypothesis, yes and a good one. It is not a theory. There is a big difference.

Lets get it straight too, you are talking about the "Dinosaurs" of Earth, elvoving into humanoid bipedals, then become even more superior to the point that they can space travel, at the speed of light constantly for millions of years. You then say they could have come back now.

Some of the problems I see here are no evidence that this ever happened. You have pictures of Gods to support your theory. I like the pictures. But they are just pictures.

There are no technologies left behind. No forms of civilisation. Then you say it "could" have been wiped away. My problem is that if a race is intellegent enough to travel at the speed of light through space, I'm sure they would have left some evidence behind.

Another thought i had is that one of the most intellegent species of birds today, only have the brain capacity of an eight year old child. Thisis a far stretch from time bending space travellers.

Another thing is as far as I know the Dinosaur are mostly recognised as Reptiles. This means that they were cold blooded and this would be something that would hurt their chances of space travel. The speculative hypothesis that they were warm blooded is lesser accepted than this and not proven.


Now i will put in my two cents, I think that it is entirely more possible that a reptillian race formed somewhere else in the universe. My theory is that somewhere else the Dinosaurs, being an early form of life within the universe, did not suffer catastrophe on another world and were left to evolve longer. They wouldn't have had there evolution interrupted as it was on Earth and I think its entirely possible, that somewhere out there, there is an intellegent Reptillian race. Whether they come to Earth and visit or live here, I would not know.

Ok so call me what you want but I think that your earthly Dinobipedal Humanoid is trekking down the wrong path.

Although thank you for the read, and sorry if I'm sounding like I am condemning your views. One thing I do admire is your imagination and your process of thought.

I guess i came across a bit closed minded to the subject. I'm sorry for that and didn't mean to offend. I do believe that



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Very well said I wish I had your words.



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join