Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

100 Million Years Old Giant Skull And Teeth Found Embedded In Coal

page: 3
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 


The good ol' days, huh? Ahhhh.....

Just the memory of a good dino hunt gets me a little misty. Of course the Triassic was a rockin' time. I never really could relate to the kids coming up in the Cretaceous.




posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Thank you, OP, this is a wonderful thread! I am always so interested in finds like this and new discoveries about the old, old times.

Having said that, there is just one thing I don't understand: Why does it seem so hard for scientists, to admit the past may have been different from what they thought it was? I just don't get that. (I don't mean the fact that if you are a scientist and find something that doesn't fit the currently resembled timeline you get in trouble with the other scientists and hence are afraid to even bring up possible new discoveries. I think if they were all open to new things, the fear of being banned from your field wouldn't even exist.)
And isn't that what it's all about anyway? Researching, discovering, trying to complete a puzzle and even more than that, being excited about the possibilities?
I get that it often feels more comfortable to stick with what you are used to in your daily life (like your surroundings and the people you love and the lifestyle you live etc), but no matter how long man existed on this planet, it won't change what man is today and how we are living life.

It may be just me, but I'd respect the scientists much more if they'd be able to say: Hey, we discovered something we didn't know was possible, lets see where this leads us...



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Emarie
Having said that, there is just one thing I don't understand: Why does it seem so hard for scientists, to admit the past may have been different from what they thought it was? I just don't get that. (I don't mean the fact that if you are a scientist and find something that doesn't fit the currently resembled timeline you get in trouble with the other scientists and hence are afraid to even bring up possible new discoveries.



Thats a common argument thrown against scientists... but its only ever NONscientists who say it. Its creationism 101.

Back in the real world of science, the reality is that finding unexpected things wins you a Nobel (or other worthy) prize.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Just read this forum post and tell me again that we have no evidence that we share a common ancestor.

www.4forums.com...

If you look for the evidence you can find it.


That was not the most convincing post, on your part.
First you start directing me to a link, which by the way falls prey to the fallacy that you then use to discredit yourself.

Yes... If you look for evidence for anything hard enough, you will find it.

It's commonly referred to as confirmation bias in research circles.

The link that you have pointed me to is a collection of correlations from different areas of science that supposedly support the idea of a common ancestor...
But they are just that correlations.

If one, meaning you, were to study research then the very first thing taught is correlation is not causation.

As I have stated.

Point me to evidence in the fossil record.

You can't. It doesn't exist.
I am not one to promote the ideas espoused in the OP, but those who detract from what is being promoted do not stand on terra firma.
It's all speculation.
Scientific dogma.
It's way too easy to parrot phd's who have cushy jobs and tow the status quo because it would destroy their iron clad perspective to embrace statistical outliers.
But it's the outliers that change the world.
edit on 27/2/2013 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
I reviewed the first link and found some problems... not with the general theory of ancient life, just the "evidence" as presented.



When I first got into it it stated there was "X-rays" and scans that show teeth but the one picture of a "scan" is indeterminate. None of the other pictures show any "teeth" either.

The other pictures of a "skull like" object are all different, presented at angles that don't show any features that would verify it as being a "skull". For instance the picture of the cranial dome lacks any thing that looks like cranial sutures.

Also missing are the orbital eye sockets. In the rough the skull looks like a complete profile ( the whole thing) embedded in the rock. In his hands the pic shows only partial of a skull top and even though the label on the picture states "missing eye sockets" we can't really tell because the man's fingers are conveniently covering where that would be! On both pictures?

You think he would show us close up of that detail or the upper teeth in the skull. Another picture (of a giant femur) looks faked.

Sorry, call this one fake.
edit on 27-2-2013 by intrptr because: image



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
woohahh that is cool i know giants exist whether annunaki nephilim etc.. aliens..



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Wow.. a whole 1 find of skull and teeth? Gasp! Well clearly that is all the proof we need!


A curio means nothing. Archaeologists are able to track civilizations by finding artifacts. Sets of items of the same style in different areas that prove a civilization existed. Artifacts from dig sites can establish a civilization. Finding a supposed single tooth or skull means nothing at all. Even if it were legitimate, it means what? That an ancient Andre the Giant existed? So what? That proves what? Yea.. nothing at all. That an anomaly existed.

Even if the found a full fossilized set of dragon bones.. it would mean nothing other than one dragon existed. You need more proof than that to suggest giants or anything of that nature were a common thing in our past.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Even if it were legitimate, it means what? That an ancient Andre the Giant existed? So what? That proves what? Yea.. nothing at all. That an anomaly existed.


Well, anomaly or possibility


Other than that I'd love to see the sceleton of a dragon, because it'd spark my imagination of what else we only know from fairy tales once may have been much more than a word in a story book.

Also, sometimes I wonder what will remain of us and this time here and now in, lets say, a million years or just two thousand. Not our technology, and we don't even leave stones with carvings of important knowledge or just the alphabet in them anymore, all our knowledge nowadays is digital and civilisations of the future will be able to dig up nothing at all of that. So if in the distant future they find an old fossile sceleton of one of us and nothing else, what does that REALLY tell them about how we lived and who we were and what we could or could not do?



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


We've been fooling ourselves for a long time, we haven't needed elites to fool us. The truth is so unbelievable that most people aren't ready to accept it, this is why humanity as a whole is so ignorant.

Some people scoff at the idea of humanity being conceived by an extra-terrestrial species the same way some people scoff at the idea of people evolving from monkeys.

If the elite were to come out with the truth overnight publicly many people would reject and resist said truth, it's just how the masses operate.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
Ed Conrad has pretty much been thoroughly debunked on his claim of the skull and bone fragments by every major anthropological outlet in the nation.

Its because of his collection methods which cannot be verified, and other reasons but here is a site that pretty much takes apart his claims piece by piece.

www.geo.ucalgary.ca...

He also claims he has proof that there is life after death because he met a guy who spoke to God and believes him. Certainly not the most logical of people out there.


Can't state any strong opinions about giant skulls or the age of the earth, but many people talk to God, that's called prayer, very common, and a very large number of those God speaks back to. The New Testament gives very precise directions on how to get to know God, and you would do very well to pay attention. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God." Jesus



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Regardless of whether or not this particular story is true or not, one has to give it some serious thought. I do know that they have been BSing us for years about when/how the North American continent was discovered, why not other things? I personally feel we have been fed a bowl of BS for years, not wanting to upset their little apple cart, about alot of things.

Seriously, these "artifacts' need to be studied further by reputable folks who know what they are doing, and don't have an agenda.

The fact also exists that of all the bones we have found of humans, they wouldn't fill a coffin. That's the sum of what we know about our ancestors. Not much. Who's to say what they really are?

SK



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Boy, the Smithsonian has been working overtime protecting us all from the truth. It is important that ATS 'bury' this story so that we can go back and watch our game...



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Science and history is constantly changing but a lot of people do not like change, change bad.

Just recently they found out that life can exist and form in conditions once thought to be impossible if devolve of either one of the necessary elements that are essential for life to exist.

Science Revised

Life where life cannot exist

Back in the early days of the United States, explorers found countless mounds throughout America. It was believed that a higher form of civilization built them and that the Native Americans were not capable of building such structures. It was "proven" that the Natives did not build them and those few who said otherwise were "debunked" and their credibility destroyed. Hmm

A few years ago a marine biologist spoke at a conference and told all the "distinguished" guests that there existed out in the depths of the ocean a colossal squids and possibly even larger ones. He was laughed out of the conference and ridiculed by "professionals" of his field who said no such thing could ever exist. A year later a fishing boat captured one. Hmm

In the 19th century, Frank Calvert and Heinrich Schliemann told the historical societies and the world that Troy could be real. They were laughed at by "professionals" who told him it was merely a story and that he was a fool. And it was "proven" to be just a legend and nothing more. In 1873, Troy was discovered and was found to be real and not just a myth or story. Hmm

The thought of being able to fly in the air was once "proven" to be a fanciful idea that could never be possible, until the Wright Brothers decided to go against "proven science" and successfully took flight in 1903. Hmm

Going to the moon was another one of the "fanciful ideas" that was "proven" impossible by leading professionals until the technology was developed that proved otherwise. Hmm

In the 19th century, Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis published a book on his findings that washing hands would reduce morality to below 1%. His findings and ideas were "debunked" and rejected by the medical community and "professionals" were outraged that he would suggest such a thing as possible. His findings were not acceptable and he was then committed to an asylum where he was beaten severely by the guards and died 14 days later. His "debunked" findings were finally "proven" correct years after his death. Hmm

In 1628, William Harvey wrote a book on his theory of how the heart was the was the central pump for blood circulation. He received much criticism and was ostracized from the scientific community because his beliefs were against the norm and "proven" science. Hmm

Georg Ohm in 1827, published a book in which he presented his theory of electricity. His work was rejected by the scientific community and he was forced to resign from his position at his college. Ohm's Law, named after him is now a "proven" science. Hmm

As you can see, "professionals" have constantly "proven" others wrong (those who think outside the box) and have "debunked" their findings but it seems those who were "wrong" have changed the course of this world with their "debunked" findings. Yet people still hold dear to these so called "professionals" or "experts" who say that they are correct and those who find otherwise are false, fake, amateurs, frauds, etc.

History repeating itself due to pride and fear.

"All great truths began as blasphemies" - George Bernard Shaw

edit on 28-2-2013 by Lostmymarbles because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   
The more I've been working a side project here the more I've been coming to realize there might be one VERY large truth pretty much staring us in the face but it wouldn't be a particularly pleasant one for the full ramifications.

As another post mentioned, this isn't the first or only thing found in coal. Things have also been found in other forms of rock. Other layers where they shouldn't be for what material or object it is in a given example. It's staggering to begin to actually see HOW many times this has happened for finding things seemingly out of time and place.

What gets bad about the whole thing and just unworkable is when coal and other layers yield things like iron objects or other materials that don't simply stand as impossible for being made in the time period that suggests....but *ARE* impossible for the material itself to survive THAT long in the condition things are found in.

It makes for the ultimate problem. The flat out impossible vs. the extremely unlikely. The impossible is described above....the unlikely is modern dating methods all being flat out wrong. I've really begun to work this on the side like a proper research project because the meaning would be so important ...but if dating is that far off?

Well, evidence of MAJOR natural disasters come and go within those timelines too. Always assumed to be SO long as to be almost meaningless for experiencing any of those disasters. It's a sobering thought if the timeline is much shorter in total length than we've all assumed.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:02 AM
link   
The people who discount evolution are really just telling us that they have no idea what they are talking about. They don't understand fossilization, evolution, or science.
As stated previously, fossilization is an extremely rare occurrence. It typically occurs during some catastrophic event that buries remains and protects them from normal degradation by natural processes. These are exceptionally rare, and finding one is an even more rare event. This is why we don't find the bones of all things that have ever lived, only bits and pieces of a few.
The chance of finding even one "transitional" individual is essentially nonexistent.
OTOH, we do have several hominid fossils from the last 4 million years, and anyone who actually saw those fossils would realize that there is not a great jump between these individually, but over time we see a progression that clearly shows an evolution. In effect, each is a "transition' species.
For example, I challenge any of the naysayers to describe the difference between a Homo Erectus and a Homo Ergaster skull. Unless you're exceptionally well versed in anatomy, you can't do it.
Moreover, DNA evidence essentially proves our relationship to other hominids, both living and dead.
There is no other rational explanation, other than that we are related, and a common ancestor is a foregone conclusion, unless you want to believe in magic, or the equally ridiculous idea of aliens.
So, the only people that you convince are those who are at least as ignorant as you.
Meanwhile, anthropologist will continue to collect evidence to illuminate the dark areas that we don't already have clear evidence for, and fill in the gaps that are missing. Of course, they will never have fossils for every species that has ever lived, but that is not possible since that would mean that every species has been caught in some cataclysmic event. Life wouldn't get very far, if that was the case.,
Do we know everything about evolution? Of course not, but we do know that Homo Sapiens is just the latest in a long line of hominids that dates back for many millions of years. That evidence is irrefutable, but you have to at least be intelligent and informed enough to understand what is staring you in the face. Sadly, as proven by many of the posters to this thread,many are not.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SweetKarma
The fact also exists that of all the bones we have found of humans, they wouldn't fill a coffin.



That particular lie comes from Hugh Ross.
This link is the full transcript.


The truth of the matter is that the evidence of the bipedal primates that God created before Adam and Eve fills only one coffin full of bones.
In no case are any of those bi-pedaled primate finds more than 30% complete.


So he's not saying that such fossil dont exist at all, he's just saying that he wishes there were more of them.
Also note that according to the Bible, there shouldnt be any *at all*, so to even admit that some exist is a rather bizzare statement from a creationist.

So, are the claims even true?

The Smithsonian Museum says over 6000 remains have been discovered.
Other places on the net cite similar numbers with estimates of over 10000 remains haviung been discovered by now.


And the second claim about percentages is easily disproven after 10 seconds with google.
A quick search finds...

About 45% of her skeleton was found...


About 40% of her skeleton was found


Congratulations, you've been lied to by creationists.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by poloblack
 


I don't mean to throw a fit, but I actually find this somewhat offensive. I work in a Geo-Chronology lab, where we date rock, and can say with a pretty good degree of certainty that we know how old the earth is. Not by Carbon dating, a process mind you that has a maximum age cap of 60,000 years, but through Potassium-Argon and Uranium-Lead dating. I personally have seen samples that were close to 4 billion years old.

Now, the whole idea of scientist conspiring to hold back the truth is, in my honest opinion, garbage. I can tell you with absolute certainty that if one of the scientists in our lab found a massive age discrepancy with traditional data they would immediately publicize it for NO OTHER REASON THEN TO GET CREDIT. I'm not saying these are terrible people, but everyone wants to be known for something. Scientists don't have a hive-mind, they don't collaborate as nicely as you'd like to think. They constantly bicker and try to out do each other. Right now there is a controversy going on with some samples that our lab dated in contradiction to another lab. We didn't just sweep it under the rug or ignore it. Instead we're re-doing the tests to try to prove the other lab wrong.

My main problem with a lot of conspiracy theory these days is that it gives centralized power too much credit. Our lab (Federally and State funded) doesn't get ordered around by guys in black suits. If someone found out something earth shattering they would try to get it out there before another lab did.
edit on 28-2-2013 by Mr. Kraken because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-2-2013 by Mr. Kraken because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by nighthawk1954
 


Not quite a man, the pa-tal seeded our planet 500 million years ago, even seeded the planet a d kept an eye here unt around 200 million odd years ago.

So most likely one of their skulls and yes they are giants
edit on 28-2-2013 by frenzy4444 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   
So ed is correct people. For those who want to know about the pa-tal they are 4 oldest races in this grand universe. Yes there is more than 1 there is 62. They seeded the whole grand universe and serve the all father directly. They are a 12d race the oldest three. The ashand which is the 4 th oldest is 10d-11d.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by stillwind
The people who discount evolution are really just telling us that they have no idea what they are talking about. They don't understand fossilization, evolution, or science.



In my experience with creationism discussions, thats true 100 percent of the time.

The timeline runs like this...

1. Creationist reads some "killer argument" on a webpage. An argument against evolution that surely nobody can refute.
2. Creationist rushes to tell the world how right they are, on a message forum.
3. The argument gets refuted with evidence, and discussion goes deeper into such matters as isochron dating or genetics.
4. Creationist abandons the argument like a hot potato and either
a/ Runs away
b/ Says "yeah, but what about..." and attempts to change the topic to some other killer argument.

Its a sure thing, every time.
And around it goes.





new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join