Screw 300 million years old! Who built it?

page: 13
58
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


You know, i have no idea why you are so defensive? Alexander the great has no recorded history? Do they not teach ancient history in USA?

answers.yahoo.com...

and im not using the site as my own proof, but this is history books man, and i had class on this on this subject wow im not even gonna say anything to you anymore, anti authority....wtf...... what am i a politician?

and best evidence of advanced civilization you would ever get is UFO's, and i have seen plenty, and so have a lot of ats members and people are around the world. This planet has been here for billions of years, you think we were the only ones here? what is so embarassing about the fact that we are de evolved from our past?


The Great Pyramid is aligned with Machupicchu, the Nazca lines and Easter Island along a straight line around the center of the Earth, within a margin of error of less than one tenth of one degree of latitude. Other sites of ancient construction that are also within one tenth of one degree of this line include: Perseopolis, the capital city of ancient Persia; Mohenjo Daro, the ancient capital city of the Indus Valley; and the lost city of Petra. The Ancient Sumarian city of Ur and the temples at Angkor Wat are within one degree of latitude of this line. The alignment of these sites is easily observable on a globe of the Earth with a horizon ring. If you line up any two of these sites on the horizon ring, all of the sites will be right on the horizon ring. 3-D world atlas software programs can also draw this line around the Earth. Start on the Equator, at the mouth of the Amazon River,; then go to the Equator at East Longitude, near the Northwest tip of New Guinea; then to South Latitude, 7' West Longitude, in the South Pacific; and then back West Longitude, at the Equator.

www.grahamhancock.com...

and this i learned in history too, but obviosly i dont have the text book anymore, otherwise thats 60 bucks
edit on 16-8-2012 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 



You know, i have no idea why you are so defensive? Alexander the great has no recorded history? Do they not teach ancient history in USA?

Please reread my post and see where you are completely wrong - AGAIN!
I never stated that Alexander the Great had no recorded history.

This is what I wrote.

How do we know the place existed? How do we know about Alexander? How do we know exactly where he went? Because it was recorded and those places can be located because of the materials left behind that verify the places.

Please read my posts before responding.


and im not using the site as my own proof, but this is history books man, and i had class on this on this subject wow im not even gonna say anything to you anymore, anti authority....wtf...... what am i a politician?

So here you are doing what you chided me about. Specifically you wrote:

You know what i dont do that you do? I dont take other peoples words, and then speak those words as if they are mine, and tell them as fact.

Sounds like you want to have it both ways.


The Great Pyramid is aligned with Machupicchu, the Nazca lines and Easter Island along a straight line around the center of the Earth, within a margin of error of less than one tenth of one degree of latitude. Other sites of ancient construction that are also within one tenth of one degree of this line include: Perseopolis, the capital city of ancient Persia; Mohenjo Daro, the ancient capital city of the Indus Valley; and the lost city of Petra. The Ancient Sumarian city of Ur and the temples at Angkor Wat are within one degree of latitude of this line. The alignment of these sites is easily observable on a globe of the Earth with a horizon ring. If you line up any two of these sites on the horizon ring, all of the sites will be right on the horizon ring. 3-D world atlas software programs can also draw this line around the Earth. Start on the Equator, at the mouth of the Amazon River,; then go to the Equator at East Longitude, near the Northwest tip of New Guinea; then to South Latitude, 7' West Longitude, in the South Pacific; and then back West Longitude, at the Equator.

And what is the drawing of these "ley" lines for? Absolutely nothing.

Pretending that these are important is completely meaningless.

Now let's get back to the issues you have already mentioned before we digress into further meaningless drivel.

1. The object in question is nothing more than a typical drinoid fossil
2. There is zero evidence for a 10,000+ year old advanced ancient civilization
3. Materials such ceramics, plastics, and metals can last thousands of years
4. Finally, the ancient pyramids are not on the equator



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


There is also no evidence towards one not exsisting, anything that has to do with our civilization will be in good shape, not all of it, but because there are people maintaining those structures, and tools, no one left them there to lay around for thousands of years without human interaction, old painting get brought to life, old structures get dug up and if any roots or anything are growing over them are removed.

My point was if there were absolutely no one on this planet, not a single person to patch up the side walks, clean the windows or replace them, no one to maintain high rises or any living enclosure, im telling you, nothing will last longer then stone, and then give it millions of years of no life you will come back and find nothing but fosilized metal, plasic, glass, bones, but you cannot tell anything from a stone. and the chances of them still looking like a glass bottle, none (but unless it got frozen, or encased in tree sap)(meaning it will be preserved)

The 10k plus number i gave, thats for our current structure, and if everyone were to disapear. Ancients had a huge gap between us and them. And our civlization has only been here roughly for 10k years on record, this planet has been here for 5 to 6 billion years, your telling me there is no way, a whole other life form in that huge amounts of time, was un able to reach a higher or same technological state?

That object is a fossil, you dont know what it was used for, what its colours were, what it behaved like and what it ate if it did at all, me bringing those links to you, like i sad, if i had the text book, i would show you correct?
and when i did show them, i said its not where i got my information from originaly.

Ancient sights around the world are all alligned and meet up at the equator (was rushing to work, missed some details
) they are all instersected, all of their allignments actually represent the golden ratio, i might be wrong in this, but the difference in the degree was the golden ration i think, i could be wrong. So it is a very big deal, in order for a civilization to have global communication they would have to be advanced, spiritually or technologically, depending on how they lived, which no one knows obviously.

There are structures and places like the Nazca lines that clearly show that the intentions to build those structures were advanced, b/c it was meant to be seen from the air. and no man, even today, no one on this planet can replicate the pyramids, no one and that is a fact.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 



There is also no evidence towards one not exsisting

Actually there is evidence. It is in the form of no sign such a civilization ever existed. There are no parts laying about indicating that civilization existed. Our civilization has produced materials that will be on Earth for hundreds of thousands of years, maybe millions. Had there been such a civilization it would have been discovered by now.


My point was if there were absolutely no one on this planet, not a single person to patch up the side walks, clean the windows or replace them, no one to maintain high rises or any living enclosure, im telling you, nothing will last longer then stone, and then give it millions of years of no life you will come back and find nothing but fosilized metal, plasic, glass, bones, but you cannot tell anything from a stone. and the chances of them still looking like a glass bottle, none (but unless it got frozen, or encased in tree sap)(meaning it will be preserved)

No need to be encased in tree sap or frozen. Objects will last a long time in many environments. Metals, plastics, glass, ceramics and such will last a very long time.


And our civlization has only been here roughly for 10k years on record, this planet has been here for 5 to 6 billion years, your telling me there is no way, a whole other life form in that huge amounts of time, was un able to reach a higher or same technological state?

Our civilization has not been here long, maybe a few hundred years. Civilizations have been around for 6500 years or so. No advanced civilization has ever populated the Earth before. Our planet has been in existence about 4.6By with life on Earth going back 3.8By or so.


That object is a fossil, you dont know what it was used for, what its colours were, what it behaved like and what it ate if it did at all, me bringing those links to you, like i sad, if i had the text book, i would show you correct?
and when i did show them, i said its not where i got my information from originaly.

Please excuse me if I don't reply properly. This is a bit garbled. Fossils are records of ancient life. They do not exhibit evidence of an ancient culture as we see with more recent digs of humans and their recent relatives.


Ancient sights around the world are all alligned and meet up at the equator (was rushing to work, missed some details ) they are all instersected, all of their allignments actually represent the golden ratio, i might be wrong in this, but the difference in the degree was the golden ration i think, i could be wrong. So it is a very big deal, in order for a civilization to have global communication they would have to be advanced, spiritually or technologically, depending on how they lived, which no one knows obviously.

That's just gibberish. Those supposed alignments are meaningless. They are artificial constructs made up by hoaxers such as Hancock.

Take for example that line you mentioned about Easter Island, Peru and Egypt. Meaningless. Why? Because these groups did not communicate. Had they we'd see something like a common language. Peru and Easter did not smelt metals. They used stone tools. About 6000 years ago the wheel came into use in Mesopotamia. The wheel was not used on Easter island or in Peru. These are just 2 examples of why these groups were not in communication with each other.


There are structures and places like the Nazca lines that clearly show that the intentions to build those structures were advanced, b/c it was meant to be seen from the air. and no man, even today, no one on this planet can replicate the pyramids, no one and that is a fact.

Of course people can replicate the pyramids. Repeating that stupid lie that people can't do it today is simply beyond belief. How can anyone believe such a nonsense statement?

You are also completely wrong about the lines of Nazca
en.wikipedia.org...

Contrary to the popular belief that the lines and figures can only be seen with the aid of flight, they are visible from atop the surrounding foothills. They were first discovered by the Peruvian archaeologist Toribio Mejia Xesspe, who spotted them when hiking through the foothills in 1927.


Please do a little reading before making more mistakes.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
but you cannot tell anything from a stone.




As a geologist I find that insulting and ignorant....



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by aorAki

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
but you cannot tell anything from a stone.




As a geologist I find that insulting and ignorant....


I dont mean in it in a bad way, but when you find a fossil of a dinosaur there is no way to tell what it acted like, how it behaved in its environment, if it had head aches or if it didn't, i in no may meant that they are pointless, there is things that they do represent, like structure, and its location, the date of the specimen, (evidence of an ancient race, would be stone, not natvies people, but ancients), but to know what it actually lived like would only be a guess.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
*grin*

It's a fossil!


13 pages of arguments and bickering when this guy had it right on page 1:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh lordy....



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


Okay I know I said I was done with this thread but I cannot ignore this post.

There are a lot of things that can be found/learned from fossils. For instance the crinoid is still around in our oceans today. The crinoid is what is in the OPs photo no doubt about it. We know what family they belong to and who other animals are related too and before we knew they still existed knew from fossils how they feed. Sometimes fossils preserve really detailed information like the delicate parts on their arms that tell us they were filter feeding. I have some very delicate bryozoan "webbing" (for lack of a better word at the time). It looks like mess netting, when I get a microscope with a camera adapter I will be adding it to my fossil thread.

As for fossils from dinosaurs. We can tell what type of food they ate, and can come fairly close to telling what kind of speed they had at a run by comparing it to modern bone structure today. Paleontologists do not just guess at stuff they compare to living creatures today. We can also tell that a T Rex was pregnant.

Dinosaurs, which also laid eggs, apparently stored calcium in similar structures prior to ovulation. In their new paper, Werning and Lee report that leg bones from the carnivorous Allosaurus and the plant eater Tenontosaurus both contained this structure, which means both creatures died shortly before laying eggs.

www.sciencedaily.com...
There has been a few cases of soft tissue miraculously being preserved as well. Not the type that hold DNA because they stuff is fragile and breaks down.
www.smithsonianmag.com...
science.howstuffworks.com...

The Hell Creek formation in which this particular specimen was found is well known and is a dream site for all collectors.

However, stating all of that nothing is ever set in stone with this (no pun intended). Science evolves as we learn. For instance there is much debate as to whether Triceratops was a juvenile Torosaurus or not.

news.discovery.com...

I tend to believe they are different but I am simply an amateur at best. I will say I have seen the debate first hand on many fossil issues on another forum that is set up for professional and amateurs.

We can also tell from fossil records that the earth has been through several global warming's and cooling's.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
And that in relative terms comes back fairly quickly from those events, which also created each of the mass extinctions. Few paleontologists believe anymore that the meteor that hit the earth in the late cretaceous was the only factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs. There was most certainly much more involved than just that, and I agree with them whole heartedly.

A lot can be learned from fossils. We know that many of them had down feathers due to fossil records. We know that some dinosaurs lived in different and seasonal climates (it was not a steamy swamp like you see in so many movies). It is thanks to the fossil record that we can know understand that modern birds are the closest relatives to now extinct dinosaurs.



Raist
edit on 8/17/12 by Raist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


No one can replicate the pyramids b/c no one has been able to, they did try and make a mintaure version out of it using the same stone, they finished it but it failed, it took them hours to buil 5 steps i think it was, and it was in now way as precise or accurete, or even straight as the pyramid of giza. Slaves did not build them, Egyptians were not crazy about killing, and we cannot replicate them (since no one has even attempted so far, it is a pointless argument)

Dude you seriously believe that lets just say a car, todays home grown chevy, would last 10k years plus? have you not visited a junk yard before? I mean a car from 100 years could last, if someone takes care of it, but you leave it in the woods and it wont look like no car anymore sir, not after 10k years either. and what about the floods and disasters that happend before us? that could have easily wiped out a whole global civilization.

4 billions years old? its dated 5 and up now, and there is no way to really tell b/c no one has ever been to the core (yet). Our civilization (and there is come evidence) started roughly 10 000 years ago, the Egyptians did not invent Hieroglyphs, it is believed that Eastern Asian culture introduced it, and it could gooes even further back then that.

The wheel is a tool, that is an option weather you need to use it or not, u can walk easter island, what do they need a wheel for? They build Structures with similar Hieroglyphs, even the same architecture, but all of that is from OUR civilization, im talking about an ANCIENT civilization, the ones the mayans talk of, and the native tails of there being 4 civilizations on this planet through its life cycle thus far.

for crying out loud use some imagination here, I believe in these things, they are not a hoax or a lie, or anti authority hahaha... to me, i do not need everyone to believe me, im just giving my own oppinion, and your replys are very rude. by the way, when a scientist, or archeologist comes and publishes something, they always say, IN HIS/HERS PERSPECTIVE.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
When you compare something, you are taking a guess, that's just like two people wearing the same black suit, and having the same haircut, one is a junky and the other a proffesor, and if they were to be fossilized would you be able to tell which one was which? (no desrespect, if you say yes i will be amazed)

One question did they not find a raptor preserved really well, with tissue and feathers?

I personnaly do not believe that even the Tyrannosaurus was juvenile, the eyes are at the side (correct me if im wrong), not like a predetor, actually most Dinosaurs eyes are at the sides.

Crazy theory i had about their extinction, a race came down, and wiped them out... they always find bones in heards or in groups so to say, i first heard of that i thought of extermination.



edit on 17-8-2012 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
When you compare something, you are taking a guess, that's just like two people wearing the same black suit, and having the same haircut, one is a junky and the other a proffesor, and if they were to be fossilized would you be able to tell which one was which? (no desrespect, if you say yes i will be amazed)

One question did they not find a raptor preserved really well, with tissue and feathers?

I personnaly do not believe that even the Tyrannosaurus was juvenile, the eyes are at the side (correct me if im wrong), not like a predetor, actually most Dinosaurs eyes are at the sides.

Crazy theory i had about their extinction, a race came down, and wiped them out... they always find bones in heards or in groups so to say, i first heard of that i thought of extermination.



edit on 17-8-2012 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)



When you compare you compare like things. Don't be obtuse with your people in suits comment. The truth is when you compare a fossil to a living creature you compare it until you find similarities. This is how we went from thinking that dinosaurs were cold blooded reptiles to being able to self regulate their internal temperature. After discovering feathers fossilized with different dinosaurs they started to compare bone structure to birds. We know that there are structures that are similar to modern reptiles and there are structures like that of birds.

Yes they have found raptors with feathers. They have also found the feather "bumps" that are on bird bones.
news.nationalgeographic.com...
www.sciencedaily.com...

To my knowledge I have no found a "well" preserved raptor as they have with the T Rex. They have found very well preserved fossils with feather and bone as well as skin imprints. However, here is an article on Archaeopteryx about just that.
www.newscientist.com...

Wait did you just say that you do not believe the T Rex was a juvenile?


Where are you getting your information on dinosaurs and more particularly T Rex? T Rex eyes were not center front as predators today but they were moved more toward the front giving them a small degree of binocular vision. T Rex was not only a predator though; T Rex also used their size to scavenge the kills of other dinosaurs. After all in most cases it would be easier to kill something else than take on a dinosaur with a mouth full of teeth the size of a banana.

As for most dinosaurs having eyes on the side of their heads that is what is called evolving life. If you look at the most evolved and most capable predators of the cretaceous period you will see that their eyes are set in the front of their heads. T Rex was not the most adapt, though T Rex was certainly very good at allowing others to get food for them. Actually I would suggest that T Rex as more like the eagle of today both predator and scavenger stealing kills from weaker dinosaurs.

As for herbivores they have no need to have eyes set to the front of their heads. Look around you at life today. Look at how different species have their eyes set, or even look at how their features change from young to adult.


There are plenty of places you can start researching the basics on this stuff. Nothing wrong with starting at the basics. It is okay to admit you do not know something. I say I am an amateur all the time. I would though suggest getting your information from a reliable source and not some off the wall place. Actually do not get your information from Wikipedia either as just about anyone can edit it. You can start you search there; just make sure you follow up with the sources to make sure they are accurate.

Raist



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


No i know this stuff lol, i went to school hahaha.

Your missing one thing here, im choosing to have my own theory on it, I know what THEY said about the T-Rex, but it reminds me a lot of a chicken, espeically the wild chickens, but a big, big chicken. but that is my theory, in order to stay a free man, you must always have your own vision.

I dont judge the discoveries or go against them, its just there are alot of things that they say, and its just them saying it, just like i did with the big T-Rex chicken


Yeah i always knew they were close to birds, tried telling that to my teacher once, didn't go so well :S

And you make a big point, for example the claims i am making are quiet rediculous to some, but then in the future or maybe even tomorrow we will have the technology that would disprove even todays theory's. just like with the dinosaurs, and even our own civilization's history.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


It is known that T Rex is more closely related to chickens through the study of the fossils. So I am not sure how you think that is your own theory, as it has been in peer reviews. Just like they were able to tell that T Rex was pregnant or not because of the similarity to the way the bones appear in modern ostriches.

You also realize the stuff they say is not is not just stuff. The stuff they say has been put through testing and a great deal of comparison and study. They do not just make this stuff up, and if they try to pass something off that is BS they get called out on it by others and lose all credibility. Why do you think the woman who found the soft tissue waited so long to come forward? She wanted to be sure so she checked many times. She even had others do testing for her. There is still a chance that the specimen got contaminated, if so it is contaminated by other means than what one would think taking place in a laboratory. If contaminated it was done in the years it was in the soil.

I think you are misunderstanding what is known now and what is not. We have proof for instance that a raptor was a predator and that Stegosaurs was an herbivore. We know this due to their teeth. We also know that certain dinosaurs had feathers it is in the fossil record. We also know that there were seasons that some dinosaurs lived through colder times. We know this through looking at fossil record and the surrounding rocks. Certain types of plants only grow in certain environments. We find those plants in the fossil record and know understand if it was temperate or if it was like a swamp.

These are things we know. They are not making claims that they have no proof about, unlike the fools that wrote the article this thread is about. With extraordinary claims there should be extraordinary evidence. If you are going to claim it back it up or it is pure fantasy or based on faith. Either way if you have nothing but your claims and no evidence you have no proof.

Raist



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 



No one can replicate the pyramids b/c no one has been able to, they did try and make a mintaure version out of it using the same stone, they finished it but it failed, it took them hours to buil 5 steps i think it was, and it was in now way as precise or accurete, or even straight as the pyramid of giza. Slaves did not build them, Egyptians were not crazy about killing, and we cannot replicate them (since no one has even attempted so far, it is a pointless argument)

Simply a bad misrepresentation of some of the testing that has been done in short term tests of ideas about construction.

Of course we can replicate the pyramids. It is not hard, but who wants to spend the money today creating such a structure when there are more important ways to spend the resources. I hear this rather stupid claim all of the time.


Dude you seriously believe that lets just say a car, todays home grown chevy, would last 10k years plus? have you not visited a junk yard before? I mean a car from 100 years could last, if someone takes care of it, but you leave it in the woods and it wont look like no car anymore sir, not after 10k years either. and what about the floods and disasters that happend before us? that could have easily wiped out a whole global civilization.

Listen dude it is not a matter of a car lasting, but some part of any of the millions of cars produced lasting. Yes there would be ample evidence. You think tree sap is more durable than plastics? Was that a serious argument or a joke you were making?


4 billions years old? its dated 5 and up now, and there is no way to really tell b/c no one has ever been to the core (yet).

It is 4.568By, not 4. The core is not a good place to look for material to age. You should be able to figure that out yourself.
en.wikipedia.org...


Our civilization (and there is come evidence) started roughly 10 000 years ago, the Egyptians did not invent Hieroglyphs, it is believed that Eastern Asian culture introduced it, and it could gooes even further back then that.


Here are some dates for you:

The earliest civilizations are:
Mesopotamian Civilization about 4000 BCE on the Tigris Euphrates River
Egyptian Civilization about 3500 BCE on the Nile River
Minoan Civilization on the Island of Crete about 2500 BCE
Indus River Civilization on the Indus River about 2300 BCE
Civilization of North China about 2200 BCE.

faculty.ucc.edu...

That is closer to 6000 years for the start of the earliest civilizations, no the 10,000 years you continue to claim.


The wheel is a tool, that is an option weather you need to use it or not, u can walk easter island, what do they need a wheel for? They build Structures with similar Hieroglyphs, even the same architecture, but all of that is from OUR civilization, im talking about an ANCIENT civilization, the ones the mayans talk of, and the native tails of there being 4 civilizations on this planet through its life cycle thus far.

for crying out loud use some imagination here, I believe in these things, they are not a hoax or a lie, or anti authority hahaha... to me, i do not need everyone to believe me, im just giving my own oppinion, and your replys are very rude. by the way, when a scientist, or archeologist comes and publishes something, they always say, IN HIS/HERS PERSPECTIVE.

For crying out loud use some common sense for a change. You ask, for what purposes do you need a wheel?
1. Make pottery.
2. Move heavy objects
3. Move yourself

More huge mistakes on your part
1. The hieroglyphics are not similar
2. The architecture is completely different

You do let your imagination run wild. These are hoaxes and rather poor ones at that. They make no sense at all. You are tossing out ideas and rather bad ones at that.

There is zero evidence for an ancient advanced civilization. We find ancient cloth, metal tools, the remains of pearls, wooden artifacts, seeds, paintings, drawings, even people, yet there is nothing showing an advanced ancient culture.

Bog people from 10k years ago have been found
en.wikipedia.org...

Otzi the ice man is from 5300 years ago complete with cloths and tools
en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a company selling 50,000 year old wood. It is they claim "Ancient Kauri is the oldest workable timber on Earth"
www.ancientwood.com...

You claim it is rude to point out that your guesses/ideas/opinion/whatever are wrong. Buck up. This is an open forum and people will point out mistakes, especially whoppers.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 



One question did they not find a raptor preserved really well, with tissue and feathers?

I personnaly do not believe that even the Tyrannosaurus was juvenile, the eyes are at the side (correct me if im wrong), not like a predetor, actually most Dinosaurs eyes are at the sides.

Crazy theory i had about their extinction, a race came down, and wiped them out... they always find bones in heards or in groups so to say, i first heard of that i thought of extermination.


www.newscientist.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

Among coelurosauria, tyrannosauroidea have the best eyesight.[2] The position of their eyes suggests that they had a very well developed sense of vision.

We know that Tyrannosaurus rex's position of the eyes were similar to that of modern humans. But their eyes and optic lobe were much larger than that of modern humans. T-rex, unlike most dinosaurs, had a combination of powerful eyesight and great sense of smell.


www.reocities.com...
See Fig 4 on p324 to realize that the eyes of T-Rex are forward looking and allow for binocular vision.

Tyrannosaurus had wider binocular vision than modern hawks, and the maximum width would have been directed across a horizontal swath of its surrounds by orienting the snout about 10° below the horizon.


Dinosaur bones are found in areas where there was preservation of bones. Bones are often collected in alluvial sites.

None of this has anything to do with the crinoid in the OP.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 



I dont judge the discoveries or go against them, its just there are alot of things that they say, and its just them saying it, just like i did with the big T-Rex chicken

A theory needs to be tested. When you say that its their opinion they also back up why they have those opinions. You simply want to express an opinion even though it might make no sense at all.

In an earlier post you called the ancient bronze swords fakes because it conflicted with your opinion on the durability of materials. I say the existence of those swords shows your opinion to be wrong. Your claim that the swords are fakes is simply a close minded, dogmatic view of the world requiring suppression to maintain itself. Go with the flow and change as new information becomes available.


Yeah i always knew they were close to birds, tried telling that to my teacher once, didn't go so well

There are many good reasons to think that birds and dinosaurs are not related. Feduccia from UNC had a number of arguments against the relationship between dinosaurs and birds.
www.unc.edu...

It is not obvious they are related as Feduccia points out in a number of statements and articles.

What Feduccia did do in this very interesting transformation on thinking about the relationship between birds and dinosaurs was to force the pro-connection researchers to work hard and better and to look for that evidence that was required.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


Revisiting this post for some better laid out information for you. The links are about T Rex and its relation to the chicken.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.livescience.com...


This T. rex peptide is most similar (14/15 identity) to collagen α1t2
(COL2A1) from many species including chicken (G. gallus), suggesting that it is derived
from α1t2 of T. rex.


precedings.nature.com...

www.newscientist.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.thecrimson.com...

There is one person who disagrees with the idea of T Rex being related to a chicken though.

www.nature.com...

With all the evidence that they are related to modern birds the problem might just be more that the choice of certain birds was made. Until though I see more evidence showing otherwise I am going to sit with the original findings on this. At this point not enough have come forward dismissing the claim that indeed T Rex is not related to the chicken.

Here are some links supporting dinosaurs are related to birds.

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

www.amnh.org...

www.sciencedaily.com...


"Everything we find these days shows just how deep in the family tree many characteristics of modern birds go, and just how bird-like these animals were," Norell said. "At this point it will surprise no one if feather like structures were present in the ancestors of all dinosaurs.


www.sciencedaily.com...


Then you have a few that suggest that dinosaurs evolved from birds.

news.discovery.com...
www.sciencedaily.com...


However, at this point it seems not as likely due to the oxygen content in the air. The oxygen in the air was much greater in the past than it is now. With a greater amount of oxygen in the air things can grow bigger. As the oxygen starts to become less things will need to start sizing down.
As I said in a past post few paleontologists today believe the meteor is not the only factor that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. It is likely there were many factors involved including a lesser amount of oxygen in the atmosphere at the time causing them to grow smaller.

calitreview.com...



Declining oxygen surely had a similar impact on Triassic reptiles, and we would expect new kinds of respiratory structures to have evolved in response. Sure enough, about 230 million years ago, a brand new respiratory system appeared in what until then had been an obscure and not overly successful group. The secret was to add a system of supplementary air sacs next to the lungs, and the group that invented it was the dinosaurs.

We can see the same air-sac system today in the sole surviving descendants of the dinosaurs: birds. Like reptiles, birds have septate lungs that are small and rigid. But unlike today's reptiles, they also have air sacs, and the resultant system of respiration is much more efficient than a lizard's.
When a bird breathes in, air does not go directly into the lungs. Instead, it enters the air sacs, where it is stored briefly before passing into the lungs at the next inhalation. In this way, air enters and exits a bird's lungs at different points - in via the air sacs, out via the windpipe - allowing them to maintain near-constant, one-way airflow through their lungs. This allows a countercurrent system to be set up between the air and the bloodstream, with air passing in one direction and blood in the other. The result is far more efficient gas exchange between air and blood than is possible in lizards, or even mammals.
The differences between animals that use air sacs and those that don't are striking. Birds extract more oxygen from the air than any other animal of comparable size. At sea level they are 33 per cent more efficient at extracting oxygen than mammals. At 1500 metres a bird may be 200 per cent more efficient. This gives birds a huge advantage over mammals at altitude. It also explains why geese can migrate over the Himalayas at an altitude that would kill a human.


www.science.org.au...

Raist



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


Very nice Raist! Barely scratched the surface of your links and I am enchanted with the info.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Thanks.

It seems to be up for debate a bit on birds and dinosaurs, but it seems the majority of information and testing is pointing toward their being related. There is so much information out there on this. The sad part is you have to pay to read many of the peer reviewed papers. I wish stuff like that was free to the public, but I guess they have to keep the lights on somehow.

Raist



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


If you live near a state university you can often get access to the library and check out the journals there. Copier machines let you read them on your own schedule.

I often find that the references lead me on to more and more interesting material.





 
58
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join