Photographic Evidence of An Alternative History

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by The time lord
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You do realise that the book of Job predates all the other books in the Bible, it is speaking about a time which is written before the Old Testament, not sure when but maybe older than Moses time.

They say the dinosaurs died at Noah's flood, they all got swept away and buried by the flood in layers. This explains the great valleys in America and sand deposits of the same kind thousands of miles away from each other. High pressure from water and sand and stone causes compression of animal and vegetation so the process of oil happened far more quickly than the millions of they predict, you can make your own oil by compressing the right stuff at home for an experiment which only takes a few months to stagnate the minerals out of organic life.

edit on 14-8-2011 by The time lord because: (no reason given)

Did you know that the thousands of cave paintings in Europe and Africa and the Rock paintings in Australia predate the bible by tens of thousands of years. There's not a single painting that depicts a dinosaur.

There are 2 cave paintings of dinosaurs right at the start of this book, one of them is from Australia!

Originally posted by The time lord
reply to post by steveknows

 

Maybe they were killed off in the flood, who says what is in the book of job is a dinosaur it could still be a species we don't know about, we are still discovering life on earth. They have found cave paintings with Egyptian themes in Australia, there are same themed pyramids all over the world how come they have so much in common?

www.crystalinks.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Quite an interesting slide show of fossils.
www.myspace.com...

Another argument is that cave paintings are not as old as they say, by the time Noah repopulated the cave visitors did not have any dinosaurs left to paint about.

Then there is pre earth theory where people here on ATS talk about God starting the formless earth again, so there was a pre Eden earth realm before something destroyed it.

They have found cave paintings with Egyptian themes in Australia? Who's they? Please point me in the right direction I need to see this. Please don't point me to some web site but a national, state or city museum would be good. Perhaps a university campus even? Well at least point me to a news report. and I mean a real news report like the national news as such and not some little paragraph on the back of a new age mag or pro Christ pamphlet ?

Originally posted by sign00

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by The time lord
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You do realise that the book of Job predates all the other books in the Bible, it is speaking about a time which is written before the Old Testament, not sure when but maybe older than Moses time.

They say the dinosaurs died at Noah's flood, they all got swept away and buried by the flood in layers. This explains the great valleys in America and sand deposits of the same kind thousands of miles away from each other. High pressure from water and sand and stone causes compression of animal and vegetation so the process of oil happened far more quickly than the millions of they predict, you can make your own oil by compressing the right stuff at home for an experiment which only takes a few months to stagnate the minerals out of organic life.

edit on 14-8-2011 by The time lord because: (no reason given)

Did you know that the thousands of cave paintings in Europe and Africa and the Rock paintings in Australia predate the bible by tens of thousands of years. There's not a single painting that depicts a dinosaur.

There are 2 cave paintings of dinosaurs right at the start of this book, one of them is from Australia!

Sorry mate I studied Aborginal culture, got an 'A' in it fact and I'm telling you there is no cave painting of a dinosaur. Unless this book splits hairs and is refering to the many paintings Crocodiles or Goannas

reply to post by steveknows


Your reply doesn't make sense; no individual person is an expert on everything ever drawn by an entire culture, no matter what grade you got for it (it's laughable actually, since you're proving by your "A" that this is only a course you took in school - which hardly makes one an expert). Anyway, I merely stated a fact, which is that the first image in that book (Figure #1) is a aboriginal painting of what appears to be a dinosaur-like creature. Obviously your school course is not going to include this image, that would defeat the point of this information being "alternative history", and then it wouldn't be in this book!

If all the skeptics are going on what they learnt in school as a basis for what is real or not then I am speechless.

EDIT: I'm not a creationist, or even a Christian, but I don't ignore evidence just because it doesn't fit into what I was taught in school. And if you care to read the book, many of the images are in/recorded by museums, newspapers, and some you can see yourself. I'm not arguing for any particular view, I'm just pointing at the evidence and saying "look!"

s

Originally posted by sign00
reply to post by steveknows

 

Your reply doesn't make sense; no individual person is an expert on everything ever drawn by an entire culture, no matter what grade you got for it (it's laughable actually, since you're proving by your "A" that this is only a course you took in school - which hardly makes one an expert). Anyway, I merely stated a fact, which is that the first image in that book (Figure #1) is a aboriginal painting of what appears to be a dinosaur-like creature. Obviously your school course is not going to include this image, that would defeat the point of this information being "alternative history", and then it wouldn't be in this book!

If all the skeptics are going on what they learnt in school as a basis for what is real or not then I am speechless.

EDIT: I'm not a creationist, or even a Christian, but I don't ignore evidence just because it doesn't fit into what I was taught in school. And if you care to read the book, many of the images are in/recorded by museums, newspapers, and some you can see yourself. I'm not arguing for any particular view, I'm just pointing at the evidence and saying "look!"

edit on 15-8-2011 by sign00 because: (no reason given)

I did not say i was an expert. Nope I did not say it at all. I said that I've studied aborginal culture and I can tell you there's no painting of a dinosaur as you say this book claims. Have you bothered to check the scources of the book? is there any recongnised authority stating it as fact? Have you referenced and crossed referenced the information you read before stating it as fact? Or are you assuming it's already been validated? As for things appearing to be something, you didn't say before that it" appeard "to be you said that it did, two paintings of dinosaurs one was from Austraiia, if you showed a 5 year old a 2000 year old statue of a scribe holding a tablet there's a real chance the 5 year old will call it an ipad what you see doesn't mean that's what it is.. let me guess now you'll respond stating things I didn't say and changing what you did say.


Oh and please point me in the direction as I have stated. I'm not against being shown the facts. The images are no doubt there. But who's interperating them? I can take a photo of an object in a museum and state that a statue of a person from 2000 years ago is holding an ipad but that doesn't mean that the museum itself states it to be the case.

Of all the items presented in this paper/book, I always found the possibility of certain types of dinosaurs surviving up until a couple hundred years ago the most intriguing....there are legit stories of tribes within South America describing Pterodactyls and certain types of Plesiosaurs.

The cylindrical heads that people keep discussing on here were a common trait of Egyptian royalty, they would deform them to distinguish themselves as such, no big mystery there. I havent heard of a "group" of horned skulls being found in PA, only the one example that was shown that mysteriously disappeared....hmmmm.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by ka119

 

How do you know we didn't live when the dinosaurs did?
Why would the pottery depicted show people getting attacked by what looks like T-Rex?
Even if they found bones and constructed them into skeletons, how would they have known that they weren't furry?

You must be completely missing my point, i support the theory that we may have lived with dinosaurs. Yet, we may never know, and in all reality it doesn't matter whether we did or not. And that last sentence of yours was completely irrelevant.

119

Am I blind or are the pictures missing? I can't see them...

Originally posted by aletheia
Am I blind or are the pictures missing? I can't see them...

I imagine you downloaded the wrong book, there are 2 books on that site. Its the second one that we're discussing, and that's the one with photos.

The cylindrical heads that people keep discussing on here were a common trait of Egyptian royalty, they would deform them to distinguish themselves as such, no big mystery there

Well it does explain in the book that by head binding only the shape of the skull is changed, but not the size. Whereas these skulls have a much larger cranial capacity, which is not possible to achieve with head binding.

Also they found mummified children and even a mummified fetus, with the same skull shape and size, meaning that the "mutation" must be genetic.

Originally posted by sign00
reply to post by steveknows

 

Your reply doesn't make sense; no individual person is an expert on everything ever drawn by an entire culture, no matter what grade you got for it (it's laughable actually, since you're proving by your "A" that this is only a course you took in school - which hardly makes one an expert). Anyway, I merely stated a fact, which is that the first image in that book (Figure #1) is a aboriginal painting of what appears to be a dinosaur-like creature. Obviously your school course is not going to include this image, that would defeat the point of this information being "alternative history", and then it wouldn't be in this book!

If all the skeptics are going on what they learnt in school as a basis for what is real or not then I am speechless.

EDIT: I'm not a creationist, or even a Christian, but I don't ignore evidence just because it doesn't fit into what I was taught in school. And if you care to read the book, many of the images are in/recorded by museums, newspapers, and some you can see yourself. I'm not arguing for any particular view, I'm just pointing at the evidence and saying "look!"

edit on 15-8-2011 by sign00 because: (no reason given)

But the poster you are addressing is doing the exact same thing you are, accepting information he's been provided. It would simply appear that his opinion is based on more substantial information than yours. You are speechless because he's accepted a large amount of information from scientists as fact. Yet you seem to think your opinion from an Ebook holds more water. I am speechless.

The accepted version of history is that the dinosaurs were extinct before humanity existed. Carbon dating verifies this. There are always exceptions to every rule. Who's to say abnormally large alligators and crocodiles haven't existed in human history? Or Komodo dragons or large monitors weren't confused with dinosaurs. Who's to say that perhaps small pockets of prehistoric creatures did survive their extinction level event and actually survived to the evolution of man. But it doesn't change the fact that the preponderance of dinosaurs were long gone by the time man existed. But the accepted reality is that there are no known aboriginal cave paintings of dinosaurs. There is not one legitimate researcher who says otherwise. The creatures in their paintings have been identified by the people themselves. So that's a pretty good source.

Take for example the Chinese dragon sculptures and paintings. They appear to be very similar to Oviraptors. With one difference. We now know Oviraptors had feathers. The Chinese interpretations have scales. So one would assume they they encountered skeletal remains of these creatures and made some errant assumptions since the exterior of the creature is wrong.

There are several examples that random prehistoric creatures existed alongside man. The dragon outside Rome where skeletal remains exist with a patch of skin. THis indicates it isn't a fossil. And there are several prehistoric creatures still alive today. The Goblin Shark. It looks like some sort of water dragon. The giant river stingray. The frilled shark. The alligator gar, which could easily pass for a plesiosaur or some sort of long necked lizard in the shallows. The giant chinese salamander, HOLY crap! The Triops. The Lamprey. The Coelacanth. The Tuatara. Horseshoe crabs. Australian Lungfish. Alligators. Crocodiles. Komodo dragons. Giant Monitor Lizards. Giant ANaconda. 500 pound catfish.

thanks alot for the link!! Some of the pictures had allready caught my attention some of them i had forgotten the name of and many were new !

The dinosaurs and in specific the mosaic of Palestrina were the most fascinating!!

reply to post by DrJay1975

But the poster you are addressing is doing the exact same thing you are, accepting information he's been provided. It would simply appear that his opinion is based on more substantial information than yours. You are speechless because he's accepted a large amount of information from scientists as fact. Yet you seem to think your opinion from an Ebook holds more water. I am speechless.

I don't believe I said that dinosaurs existed alongside humans. What I said, is that there is evidence that dinosaurs existed alongside humans. Do you see the difference? You can't just deny evidence because it goes against what you have been taught, that is not scientific. The entire point of this ebook is to present a series of photos, which if real, are evidence for history being different to what we were taught in school and what is generally accepted. As I said, you can't expect this to be taught in schools, since we already know it is not accepted by mainstream historians. But again, just because something is not taught in schools does not mean evidence on it can be ignored (evidence should never be ignored, which is a fundamental concept of the sciences). Any logical person could see that all things start off as evidence before being taught in schools, so any "new" historical discovery would not be expected to be accepted.

I think you are missing the point, did you look at the book? It is not presented as an opinion, only a compilation of photographs. Also steveknows has tried to say that no cave painting exists of a dinosaur to support his argument, but there are 2 cave paintings of dinosaurs right there in the book that we are discussing. So in that sense he has already disproven his own opinions since he doesn't appear to have read the book he is arguing about.

Has anyone found any evidence that any of these photos are not genuine?

Maybe the subject of history i philosophically wrong. Maybe it should be wrote as a set of possibilities with probabilities of different possibilities. Not presented as facts but possibilities.

Originally posted by sign00
Has anyone found any evidence that any of these photos are not genuine?

I believe the photos are genuine...because the photos themselves physically exist.

However, I do not believe that what they depict is evidence of the co-existence of dinosaurs with humans.

Is there no space in this story of them representing mythic creation? The creatures of their folklore?

Say I carve a representation of a jabberwocky onto a wall today and it's dug up in a few thousand years time by scientists, does that automatically mean to them that jabberwockies existed in 2011?

No it doesnt, and neither should it.

Say I carve a representation of a jabberwocky onto a wall today and it's dug up in a few thousand years time by scientists, does that automatically mean to them that jabberwockies existed in 2011?

No it doesnt, and neither should it.

Understood, but I don't think that really makes sense. If you carve a picture of a jabberwocky into a wall today, AND in thousands of years time people DIG UP bones that can be reconstructed to look like a jabberwocky, then it would only be reasonable to assume that jabberwockies existed in 2011. It is the fact that we know dinosaurs did exist that makes it interesting.

I also want to make a couple of statements. The first is that the whole evolution/creation debate has nothing to do with whether dinosaurs existed in the near history or very distant history. Evolution is not in any way harmed by the concept that dinosaurs could have existed alongside humans - it doesn't undermine any part of evolution (it certainly undermines some accepted theories, but they could simply be updated.)

Secondly, everyone accepts that dinosaurs are from a very long time ago (60+ million years) because we are told so. But this is only a guess. Carbon dating goes back.... 50,000 years maximum. Uranium dating probably was not even invented when the age of the dinosaurs was determined, but it also known for giving strange results. Now all of these dating methods assume that the conditions on Earth are constant, which we are now beginning to realize is not true. If the atmosphere were thicker, humans would be larger (i.e. giants) and reptiles would be larger too (i.e. dinosaurs). Reptiles do very badly in today's climate, but in a denser and more tropical climate they can thrive. With different environmental conditions, the half-life of uranium will fluctuate (yes, there is evidence that half-lives fluctuate with environmental conditions), giving the dating systems no meaning.

Originally posted by sign00
With different environmental conditions, the half-life of uranium will fluctuate (yes, there is evidence that half-lives fluctuate with environmental conditions), giving the dating systems no meaning.

There is? Really?

Well, then, provide it please.

C14 and Uranium aren't the only methods, you know.

And you're wrong about your assumption of what these methods assume.

Fluctuations in C14 in the atmosphere have been known about for quite a long time. They have been correlated and accounted for. That's why you get two dates - one a regular date and the other a radiocarbon date - aka an RC date, aka a carbon date.

Not that such a thing matters much to a paleontologist, as you pointed out. 50Kybp isn't very long to those guys.

Harte

Half-lives are influenced (at least in some materials, but if in some then it must have some affect to all) by sun activity. So we must know both the activity of the sun and the distance of the Earth from the sun throughout history in order to make more accurate predictions:

cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com...

Also, it is generally accepted that the dating methods are not accurate. They give only a rough idea which is then used in order to attempt to determine a specific time period which is often chosen, based on where it would appear to make the most sense to fit it (where it connects in with the current theory).

Though I do agree that the dating methods have been improved more recently, and should now be more accurate. Though I don't see them retesting everything they have already dated with the new methods.

Regardless, the book is just a compilation to make you think, without making any outlandish claims (rather, presenting the facts for you to make up your own mind). If it makes you cringe instead then just ignore it.

Originally posted by sign00
Half-lives are influenced (at least in some materials, but if in some then it must have some affect to all) by sun activity. So we must know both the activity of the sun and the distance of the Earth from the sun throughout history in order to make more accurate predictions:

cyclesresearchinstitute.wordpress.com...

The facts at that link have been discussed here before.

The fluctuations found would change dates determined by C14 and other radiological methods by a range of a few days to a few months, depending on how far in the past the date is.

Not gonna cause a problem.

Originally posted by sign00
Also, it is generally accepted that the dating methods are not accurate. They give only a rough idea which is then used in order to attempt to determine a specific time period which is often chosen, based on where it would appear to make the most sense to fit it (where it connects in with the current theory).

There are a great many methods for determining dates.

The fact is, if a particular date is withing the span of written history, it is certainly correct to within the margin of error provided by the test (which is sometimes a hundred years plus or minus, or even more.)

Older dates have much larger margins of error, but, as a percentage of YBP, they are quite small.

Harte