Photographic Evidence of An Alternative History

Harte, I think you have a strange idea about how radiometric dating works. +/-100 years would be a near perfect accuracy when we're talking about millions and millions of years. Some of the best methods boast 1% error rate, which is within a few thousands years at best.

But anyway, that's beside the point. I think we can agree to disagree. Both sides of the debate have their own supporting evidence and their reasons why the other side's evidence is not acceptable. Going back to the original topic of this thread, there is photographic evidence of dinosaurs in modern history, which some people accept as evidence based on one particular logic, and other people dismiss based on another particular logic - all depending on the prior beliefs and mindset of the individual. In which case, debating the matter with words will never lead to a satisfactory conclusion. The important point is that the photographs exist, and their meaning is something to be interpreted on a personal level... and regardless of which, the truth remains the same.

Originally posted by sign00
Harte, I think you have a strange idea about how radiometric dating works. +/-100 years would be a near perfect accuracy when we're talking about millions and millions of years. Some of the best methods boast 1% error rate, which is within a few thousands years at best.

But anyway, that's beside the point. I think we can agree to disagree. Both sides of the debate have their own supporting evidence and their reasons why the other side's evidence is not acceptable. Going back to the original topic of this thread, there is photographic evidence of dinosaurs in modern history, which some people accept as evidence based on one particular logic, and other people dismiss based on another particular logic - all depending on the prior beliefs and mindset of the individual. In which case, debating the matter with words will never lead to a satisfactory conclusion. The important point is that the photographs exist, and their meaning is something to be interpreted on a personal level... and regardless of which, the truth remains the same.

In fact, no such photographs exist.

I've already dismissed the claim based on known hoaxes and perfectly accurate explanations.

So, no, it's not based on anyone's particular logic, nor is it a matter of opinion.

Also, when I said a few hundred years, I was talking specifically about C14 dating, which can only be used for items less than about 50,000 years old.

Obviously, the older the date obtained, the larger the error margin (which is always provided with the date, btw.)

I believe I also said that in my earlier post.

Harte

Harte, you "dismissed" 2 sets of photos out of 100.

And the "photographs" do in fact exist, as otherwise they could not be in the book (you know, the one we are talking about.) I think you mean that the artifacts inside the photos are fraudulent/Photoshopped/misinterpreted/etc.

And I said that opinion is based on opinion, and truth remains the same. You have misunderstood my last post entirely. Did we get through this entire debate with you reading my posts in such a rage as to not understand English? Please go back and read my previous post again.

Originally posted by sign00
Harte, you "dismissed" 2 sets of photos out of 100.

And the "photographs" do in fact exist, as otherwise they could not be in the book (you know, the one we are talking about.) I think you mean that the artifacts inside the photos are fraudulent/Photoshopped/misinterpreted/etc.

Semantics? Really?

"No such photographs exist." Not "No photographs exist."

Do you want me to go through and explain every photo?

In your opinion, it's okay to include pic after pic and pages of discussion about established fraudulent claims, without even mentioning they are known frauds?

Sorry, I don't have the time to explain every photo to you. Do it yourself. Try the search function here. Or, you could append my username to a google search concerning each subject in the text to find where I've done this before - at other websites.

There exist no photos that are evidence of any "alternative history."
Better?

Truth is a philosophical concept. What matters are facts.

Harte

That is simply untrue. If you state your opinion it does not make something else now false because you said so, same for me and for everyone else in the world.

What we are dealing with is evidence for vs. evidence against. For 2 sets of these photos, the dinosaur statues and those Inca Stones, there is reasonable evidence against. For all others, there is reasonable evidence for... this is my perspective. Your perspective is different - not a problem, but that is only your perspective.

Originally posted by HenryTwoTimes
Who is to say that ancient people couldn't have come across fossils and deduced what dinosaurs looked like, just as we have done today? To suggest that the only answer is that humans and dinosaurs co-existed is ridiculous. I never rule anything out, but let's at least try to be honest with ourselves about the possibilities.

indeed that's the first thing i thought. we weren't around with dinosaurs and we have many pictures of them from fossil evidence.

As I previously explained, the modern interpretation of what a dinosaur looks like (which I believe is reasonably accurate) is only 100 years old. Before that it was believed that dinosaurs looked more like lizards, which it an entirely different leg structure for a start. A lizard's legs come out in a kind of squat position, which we now know to only be suitable of holding a small weight. Whereas dinosaurs were large and heavy (many of them) and require a stronger leg structure which is more similar to a mammal's legs. Illustrations of dinosaurs prior to the 19th century show dinosaurs entirely differently to how we imagine them now.

The paintings of dinosaurs in these photos show the dinosaurs looking as we know them today, and therefore are either (1) fraudulent (which is not the case for many, which have a recorded history), (2) the ancients understood natural biological structures better than we did 100 years ago, or, (3) they drew (or copied drawings of) an actual dinosaur.

Let me restate again: our civilization did not figure out what a dinosaur looked like until 100 years ago, and the ancient illustrations match what we now believe they looked like after decades of research.

See for yourself, the following book was published in 1933 and still has illustrations of dinosaurs in the lizard-squat-position:
www.archive.org.../n9/mode/2up

Compare that to how we see them now, and the photos in the book, e.g. the Angkor Wat Stegosaurus.

Originally posted by sign00
Compare that to how we see them now, and the photos in the book, e.g. the Angkor Wat Stegosaurus.

I suggest you take your own advice.

Comparing the carving of a pig-like creature (Angkor Wat) to a stegosaur, that is.

That's right. The "plates" are part of the frame, and not part of the animal. The spiral frame of leaves suggests foliage in the background, similar to several of the other carvings on the columns at Angkor Wat (which, you will note, these proponents of "modern" dinosaurs never show you or even mention.)

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by sign00
Compare that to how we see them now, and the photos in the book, e.g. the Angkor Wat Stegosaurus.

I suggest you take your own advice.

Comparing the carving of a pig-like creature (Angkor Wat) to a stegosaur, that is.

That's right. The "plates" are part of the frame, and not part of the animal. The spiral frame of leaves suggests foliage in the background, similar to several of the other carvings on the columns at Angkor Wat (which, you will note, these proponents of "modern" dinosaurs never show you or even mention.)

Harte

Ah, I see you have read many blogs on the Internet and you are capable of repeating nonsense.

I've been to Cambodia, I have personally seen the carving, and stood for an hour looking at it. The plates are certainly not foliage, they are part of the animal no doubt about it. The photographs generally seen on the Net are not very high quality, it is clearer to see with the eye. Unfortunately my camera was stolen and I lost the photos I took, which was a major disappointment as I took the time to take stereoscopic photographs.

Originally posted by sign00
Ah, I see you have read many blogs on the Internet and you are capable of repeating nonsense.

I've been to Cambodia, I have personally seen the carving, and stood for an hour looking at it. The plates are certainly not foliage, they are part of the animal no doubt about it. The photographs generally seen on the Net are not very high quality, it is clearer to see with the eye. Unfortunately my camera was stolen and I lost the photos I took, which was a major disappointment as I took the time to take stereoscopic photographs.

Your previous claim:

Originally posted by sign00
Let me restate again: our civilization did not figure out what a dinosaur looked like until 100 years ago, and the ancient illustrations match what we now believe they looked like after decades of research.

So, compare the Angkor Wat creature to what "our civilization figure(d) out":

Stegosaur:



Angkor Wat animal:


Not even close.

People should remember that not every piece of artwork is meant to be a representation of something real.

Just below the animal carving at Angkor Wat one can find several odd things:


What would be your explanation for the creature at the bottom of the column?:



Obviously, there were demons walking around all over Cambodia at the time, just like dinosaurs.

Harte

So, compare the Angkor Wat creature to what "our civilization figure(d) out

It's not necessarily a stegosaurus.

What would be your explanation for the creature at the bottom of the column?

All the temples in Siem Reap are "held up" by demons and have divas at the top. It's a sort of yin-yang symbolism, very alchemical as the demons play an equally important role to the devas - the demons are the base holding everything together (or up in this case). Every inch of wall is covered in these carvings but the "dinosaur" is one of a kind. You need to research Hinduism and Buddhism (which is derived from Hinduism) in order to understand the meaning of the carvings. Certainly they did not just draw random creatures everywhere, if that is what you are implying.

I think you have gotten carried away with this debate. I have only continued it as an excuse to keep this topic at the top of the page.

The fact of the matter is that this carving is not of an animal which is alive today, and does appear to be of an animal which is believed to have been long extinct. If you want to debunk it so badly you should question whether the carving is actually genuine, as that particular temple was used as a set in the first Tomb Raider movie and it has been suggested that the carving may made at that time, or another time in order to increase tourism in the area. There is more than enough debunking to be done here, instead of resorting to naively stating that it looks like something it doesn't, especially when you are arguing with someone who has studied it, when you have not.

Originally posted by sign00

So, compare the Angkor Wat creature to what "our civilization figure(d) out

It's not necessarily a stegosaurus.

I agree.

However, it was you that claimed the ancients knew back then what real dinosaurs looked like.

Originally posted by sign00

What would be your explanation for the creature at the bottom of the column?

All the temples in Siem Reap are "held up" by demons and have divas at the top. It's a sort of yin-yang symbolism, very alchemical as the demons play an equally important role to the devas - the demons are the base holding everything together (or up in this case). Every inch of wall is covered in these carvings but the "dinosaur" is one of a kind. You need to research Hinduism and Buddhism (which is derived from Hinduism) in order to understand the meaning of the carvings. Certainly they did not just draw random creatures everywhere, if that is what you are implying.

What?
A mainstream explanation?

Obviously, you've been brainwashed.

Harte

Originally posted by sign00
Ah, I see you have read many blogs on the Internet and you are capable of repeating nonsense.

Pot, kettle, black, scammer.

sign00 Exposed As A Lying Deceiver

Painful Truth About This Scammer - BEWARE

WillowToad, I'm not sure what your problem is... but there is no deception going on from my part. Everyone in this thread knows that I am the author of this book, and everyone in the Philosophers' Stone thread knows that I am the author of that book. Both are free. In this thread I never stated that I was not the author, but thought it wise to not mention it in the opening so people don't make immediate judgements before reading. In the thread you are linking to I deliberately made the effort to conceal my identity for good reason in the beginning, but then admitted I was the author a couple of days after the thread was created IN MARCH (it is now December). The fact that the link is in my sig is not a secret discovery of yours - it is there for all to see. Also note that my real name is neither "Anonymous" or "sign00", as your real name is not really "WillowToad" - so the whole question of identity is meaningless in this context. If you are 9 years old, understand that this type of behavior is not acceptable in the world and you must present your arguments differently if you wish to be taken seriously. If you are an adult... I don't know what to say.

Harte, I am not a wild conspiracy theorist who believes random nonsense. I have been arguing valid points. Now I see that you are simply here to troll and not to have any kind of reasonable discussion - like so many others. But I do want to thank you for keeping this thread at the top of the page. There is a beautiful irony to this whole story.

Originally posted by sign00
Harte, I am not a wild conspiracy theorist who believes random nonsense. I have been arguing valid points. Now I see that you are simply here to troll and not to have any kind of reasonable discussion - like so many others. But I do want to thank you for keeping this thread at the top of the page. There is a beautiful irony to this whole story.

edit on 14-12-2011 by sign00 because: (no reason given)

I see.

So, since I know from previous investigation that the majority of your "evidence" is pure crap, and I suspect that the rest of it belongs in that same category (again, based on my own previous research,) then I am a "troll."

This book is total crap. It doesn't matter if that fact comes from a troll or from anyone else.

Harte

Try Genes, Giants, Monsters and Men by Joseph P Farrell.

Harte, while we may have debating some of the finer points; the book itself makes no presumptions, it is simply a compilation of photographs suggesting that history is not we have been taught. The reason why I said you are trolling, is because it has become apparent that you are arguing personally against me, ignoring any facts I present that you don't like, and simply attempting to discredit the book - not because you have any solid evidence against it - but just because it goes against your personal beliefs, and attempting to suggest that you have "debunked" it all, when you have done nothing even close, and have only been debating 2 of the photographs.

Originally posted by Harte

So, since I know from previous investigation that the majority of your "evidence" is pure crap, and I suspect that the rest of it belongs in that same category (again, based on my own previous research,) then I am a "troll."

This book is total crap sign00. It doesn't matter if that fact comes from a troll or from anyone else.

Harte

Crap is a kind word.

Let's look at what sign00 believes his crap book will accomplish - from his own forum...

As for what to do with the Stone and the effects it will have on the world. I am confident that it will destroy everything and reduce the world to chaos.

sign00 Forecasts His Book' Work Will Destroy Everything