Bloggers hiring lawyers?

I am somewhat in hibernation, as ideas for posts are just not happening. But I did happen on this story wherein one blogger is suing another for defamation, written by a man who defamed my late older brother, a Catholic priest, by implying (or stating outright) that he was part of the pedophile scandal. For that I put a permanent ban on him, the only time I have done such a thing.

The idea that bloggers engage lawyers and sue one another is, in my view, comical. I have always known my place. One issue of any small-town newspaper gets more reads than anything I write. I have always maintained that I blog because I like to write and like to argue with people. My take on the human condition is that minds are never changed except slowly and over long periods of time. People can change, I suppose. Not today however.

I won’t mention the names involved in that knife fight, as I don’t want anyone coming after me. But I must say, having this forum has allowed me to meet some very nice and intelligent people who have changed my outlook, enlightened me, straightened me out. If there is any good to come from blogging, it is that.

I should end by saying Merry Christmas and happy holidays. Screw that. Just carry on as you always have, hopefully experiencing, as I do now and then, forward movement.

147 thoughts on “Bloggers hiring lawyers?

  1. What are your best skeptic sources on the science of global warming? A friend of mine is a True Believer and insists all the skeptics have red flags, at least in his eyes (oil industry connections or political affiliations.) Personally I haven’t tried to dig deep into the science, I’ve just intuited how it’s being used, seen evidence of fraud, and have common sense objections to the claims. But arguing that would entail rewiring his whole worldview which has great faith in institutions, especially science. So it would be nice to have credible scientist skeptics.

    Like

    1. If you really want to get into it with him, you could find out what his trusted sources are and follow their money. Your pretty much guaranteed to fail no matter what you do, of course, as you already seem to know. Personally, I’ve given up arguing with true believers. On the rare occasions I’ve changed other people’s minds about anything (or they’ve changed mine), it wasn’t calculated. It’s kind of like people who try too hard to make you laugh. When you can tell they’re trying, your defenses go up, and a joke that might have had you in stitches just leaves you cold.

      Like

    2. Heartland Institute js a good source – they run them all through there. Just in terms of entertaining talks, Steve Goreham is a good bet. Forwattitsworth Excuse me, Wattsupwiththat Blog and Climate Etc. are good resources.

      Like

    3. just show him where it was written about well in advance of it happening in books, memorandums, etc. the so called ptb dont actually “hide” a lot of things they do they write about it decades and have planned it perhaps a 100 or more years in advance such as this and refer to us as anthropomorphic apes they just dont put it on tv as long as its not on tv the masses are clueless and ignorant as always. like allen dulles said “americans dont read anyway”.

      Like

    4. You can tackle the “oil industry” accusation by pointing out how big the CEO of the biggest oil company (ExxonMobil) is pushing the carbon credit scheming. Of course they themselves are exempt.

      Also, it is not about science (as steve says), but also not about money. Money will be phased out in the not so distant future, to get a “carbon” score (an asocial credit scheme in heavy preparation and testing in China). So it is to get full social engineering where your “carbon footprint” (impossible to measure with exhaled gases anyway) becomes your currency, on top of your character.

      Best eye openers for this idea are the Black Mirror episodes Nosedive and especially White Bear. Those shows should open more eyes than scientific criticism against this psyop, which does not work;

      it is irrelevant what is true, what matter is what is perceived to be true

      And of course embrace Agenda 2020 to be 10 years ahead of the Voodoo People.

      Like

      1. right, these type things are always the cover story and they always get people bogged down in discussing it which is a waste of time since its not really a thing and only a cover story to begin with in order to foster something else thats how propaganda works.

        Like

  2. It’s not about the science. It’s about money; huge amounts of money.

    “On September 25, 2019, the United Nations answered the global strikes with the call for a Global Green New Deal. It is quite fascinating that none of the groups and leading proponents who have mobilized the populace to demand a “Green New Deal” are sharing the UN announcement with the corresponding 201-page report. Perhaps it is because with this report, in which the word “growth” appears 392 times, it will be difficult to convince a populace that this is anything but what it actually is – a desperate attempt to save the global capitalist economic system destroying our planet.” http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/10/06/a-100-trillion-dollar-storytelling-campaign/

    Scientists are paid by the same interests obsessed with economic growth. What is killing our environment if not growth? Fighting over the science of an invisible gas distracts from the overriding financial manipulation, and keeps activists from fighting against polluted rivers, desertification of forests, mercury in fish, and other levels of toxic pollution and ecological destruction caused by commerce. The money is in carbon, which makes the money itself toxic to humans, well-meaning NGOs and the environment.

    Like

  3. I feel the trick here is to reflect back on him, if like you say they are a true believer. Ask him WHAT exactly there is universal acceptance of? You will probably get an answer that humans have caused climate change. You can say yes, humans may have had some limited impact on temperatures, but ask him why he thinks we are headed for catastrophe? Remind him that we are actually in the interglacial period of an Ice Age, so what exactly does he think is the problem with a small upward trend over 100 years in data? If the question is so broadly framed as whether climates are changing, the answer would always be yes. The question is climate changing how much, and what are the repercussions of these changes? You should much more easily be able to persuade him if you concede the idea that humans may have had some minimal impact on temperatures. Make him realize that the catastrophic picture being framed is based on nothing but fear, not science. Ask him what he thinks could be accomplished by spending billions or trillions per year to fix such a problem? Make him realize that he has been fooled into letting the government have a blank check in his mind because temperature has moved a little bit. It’s really absurd. People buy into the first part, climate change, as essentially bait. From there, the science stops and the catastrophizing begins. Fossil fuels will be gone before long either way. We will have to transition to new technologies no matter what. The fossil fuel period will end up being brief. Any slight fossil fuel temperature changes will easily be canceled out by real climate shifts, like back to Ice Age. Concede the first point, climate is changing, but nail down the fact that the changes are minute and all catastrophic fear mongering is just to keep the population in fear with a blank check to fight a new imaginary menace.

    Like

    1. CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, but it is water vapor that is the major one. The science advanced by IPCC is based around climate sensitivity to CO2, claiming a magnification effect of CO2 through water vapor. Lord Christopher Monckton has given talks wherein he goes through the mathematics behind sensitivity, and shows that the magnification effect is negligible. “Case closed,” he says at the conclusion, and physical evidence also defeats this argument, as 1/4 of the CO2 put in the atmosphere by humans has happened since 1990, yet there has been no warming from the late 90s to now, over, twenty years. Alarmists now claim that the warming has taken place, but is hidden in the oceans, shifting their focus there. It’s the dog ate my homework excuse, the ocean ate my warming. The oceans have not warmed.

      There has been mild warming since the 1600s, the end of the Little Ice Age, and it is beneficial. We are OK. We have problems, but climate change is not one of them. We make messes. We clean them up. The basic push behind climate change is anti-humanism, the idea expressed by Alan Dulles that we are “useless eaters.” It’s a pretty ugly move to remove people from the planet by removing our source if energy. These are monsters. I get so sick of them … they lie, they lie, they lie.

      Like

        1. Looked into my question about CO2 and it looks like upwards of 80% of it will be immediately cycled out of the atmosphere within about 100 years. So like I suggested and as Mark said, if heightened CO2 is not actually a strong direct correlation to higher temperatures, and we know for sure that in the long run these heightened CO2 levels will come plummeting back down after we’re done with fossil fuels, then what exactly is the problem? It’s all a lot of fear mongering alarmism. Think back to the panic about the ozone layer. Did that turn out to be warranted? Does anyone honestly think we should be panicking about a short-term spike in atmospheric CO2 which is going to last less than 1,000 years total? That’s a blip in the data on the geological scale. It is not permanent. It is temporary, and the effects are minimal. This really could actually be beneficial. Why is it always viewed as a guaranteed detriment? This isn’t anything to panic about…bottom line. We could just as easily miss the excess CO2 when it’s gone.

          For my take on the whole “change someone’s mind” subject, it helps to concede that some aspects of what they believe are at least partially correct. People don’t like to be told they’re wrong, so it helps to say “You are right, but you’ve been mislead from there”. It is obvious that humans are having some negative climate impacts. Acknowledge that…otherwise this person will never listen to you. Where you can make a compelling case is in that the excess CO2 panic is just that…an irrational panic. It is, at worst, a temporary spike with limited direct impact on temperature, and no means of permanently changing the climate. Then once you’re clear on that case, this person may just realize that they’ve swallowed the fear mongering hook, line, and sinker. It’s good to care about the environment, but don’t let it turn you into a sucker. This doesn’t even get into the uselessness of our spending trillions on the problem, when there are so many useful things we could do with those trillions. It is all extremely absurd.

          Like

      1. Has there ever been any serious research into whether the current heightened CO2 levels have any reason to stay heightened long-term? After the next few hundred years, wouldn’t the CO2 level naturally go down after we are done using fossil fuels as a main energy source? I mean, if there is any slight impact on temperatures due to the excess CO2, isn’t it just in the very short term? It is not like CO2 has any mechanism for staying heightened…after fossil fuels are no longer humanity’s main energy source. This is a brief little spike in atmospheric CO2 that will disappear in the blink of an eye on a geological time scale. Right? That seems obvious to me, and I don’t understand why we are being encouraged to freak out.

        Like

        1. I think, if you keep on pushing, that you will find that warming causes increased CO2 levels, not the opposite. The Greenland Ice Core work has been refined enough now that they can show that warming is followed, in the history of our planet, about 800 years later by release of CO2 from the ocean.

          But the critical point to take home is that there has never been a upper level of CO2 in our atmosphere that is harmful to living organisms. We’ve had ice ages where the level has been 2000 ppm. There is a lower level – if I remember correctly, 180 ppm or so is the tripping point below which life perishes. Our current level of 400 ppm is healthy, and the planet is greening. If we double it to 800 ppm, nothing will suffer.

          The best comparison I have seen this this: You paint your barn red. You can come along and put another coat of red paint on it. It will not make it redder. The impact of CO2 is felt now and is as intense as it will get.

          By the way, if you attend an indoor rock concert, in addition to inhaling untold quantities of marijuana, you will also be exposed to CO2 levels as high as 1500-2000 ppm due to human exhalations. You may lose your hearing but will otherwise not be harmed.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Preaching to the choir on there not being an upper limit of CO2 to sustain life! I collect Silurian age fossils and am well aware that life on Earth has sustained vastly higher CO2 levels, and it didn’t even always imply higher temperatures. For those like us who are able to think in geological time at a planetary scale, it becomes so easy to see how the climate change thing is just a panic with evil motives.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Did you recognize Silurian for being Toronto area? I know there is a ring of Silurian-aged bedrock circling the Michigan basin. My rocks are from what is called the Racine Formation running up the western shore of Lake Michigan.

            Like

          3. What becomes really more alarming to me looking at the geological timeline dating back to the Cambrian is how LOW the current atmospheric CO2 is. You can clearly see that life on land has thrived with atmospheric CO2 anywhere between 800ppm and 2000ppm, with life thriving in the oceans upwards of 4500ppm. The Carboniferous 300 million years ago is a fair analog in temperatures and had 800ppm CO2. The Ordovician had atmospheric CO2 over 4200ppm, and is known to have hosted Ice Ages!!! I would love to hear what a climate change alarmist would say to explain that one. If atmospheric CO2 is such an urgent danger, then why did the planet host an Ice Age with CO2 at 4200ppm?

            Like

          4. Fauxlex, you collect fossils? What’s your view of dino fossils, real or no? Also, is oil really made of fossilized algae or plant matter in ancient oceans…

            Like

          5. My fossil collection long pre-dates the dinosaurs. The Silurian was 420 million years ago and is around the time of the first land plants. Fossils are real. The fossil record is real. I do not know how anyone could try to tell you otherwise and expect to be taken seriously. My fossils are all collected from exposed bedrock dolomite, and I can verify almost every type of creature known from that age. Crinoids, brachiopods, corals, gastropods, nautiloids. All represented in my collection, 100% independently gathered by myself with zero expectations for what I was going to find. That’s not fakeable, and the aging methods are reliable. I’m not even sure that anyone but myself knows the quality of the fossils in the specific location I’ve collected from. The Silurian was named after an identical layer of dolomite found in the UK, which was very near to the modern US separated only by a shallow ocean at that time. This is why my creatures match the UK ones. This alone is proof of plate tectonics, the fossil record, etc. Of these things, I have no doubts. What I have found unequivocally supports the physical reality of fossils, and all that the fossil record implies. It is so undeniable that I find any notion that fossils are fake to be very silly. Or any claim that they’re only 5,000 years old or whatever.

            Oil is outside of my specific knowledge, but like I said I have great faith in modern geology. As far as I can tell, modern geology is not full of shenanigans. For what it’s worth, I’m lukewarm on Evolution as an explanation of the history of life on earth, but that’s a whole different story.

            Like

          6. Fauxlex- have you personally come across dino fossils though? What if PART of the fossil record is faked? What if somebody combined large reptiles with large sea creatures, say, or fragments of same… And then filled in the missing parts with artistic license? Etc etc?

            Like

          7. You could convince me, maybe, that certain individual specimens could be dubious, but not an entire geological period spanning millions of years and represented in rock strata worldwide. I encourage you to go out and find a dinosaur fossil. This would remove any doubt, honestly. They can’t all have been planted. Like I said, my own preferred fossil site is kind of my own secret. Fossils are plentiful. Even the dinosaur ones, as far as I can tell. Anyone can go out and find dinosaur fossils in the rock strata. So no, I do not believe that large of an era in the fossil record could be faked or manipulated to that extent. They’re out there, embedded within rock itself, and you yourself could go and find them. That is not fakeable.

            Granted, you could have a couple of Piltdown Man scenarios, where some unscrupulous scientist desperately trying to prove something uses fraud to make their case. But the fossils, generally speaking, are very real and any random person is able to independently verify this. Stratigraphy is a great science. In combination with plate tectonics, so much is explained via identical fossil samples found in identical rock layers on the opposite sides of the globe. As I said, I am lukewarm on Evolution and there is a famous case of fraud known with fossils (Piltdown)…but when the evidence is so widespread and plentiful, and embedded within the rock itself, that is not really questionable. Sure, there might be some sloppy or unscrupulous scientists making bad scientific conclusions, but the fossils themselves are there. If you have any doubts about a particular era of fossils, nothing can beat going out yourself and finding samples yourself. They are there.

            Like

          8. I went fossil hunting as a kid.. Got a few trilobites or something of that sort.. No T Rex skulls as I recall 🙂

            The claims of the skeptics are that museums are not really presenting dino fossils, just casts. Actual fossils said to be in vaults. Look up Eric Dubay dino fake page for a good list of the arguments.

            I don’t know if it’s fake. I do think it COULD be faked though. If you’re on this page, you know that big lies exist…

            But I accept your challenge, where do I begin my search?

            Like

          9. It matters what the bedrock is, so it is meaningless that when I was searching Silurian dolomite I didn’t find any “dinosaurs”. Same with your trilobites. You would want to find a place where the bedrock stratigraphy is correct. I believe Montana is a great place for generically what we think of as “dinosaurs”. Basically, find the right rock layer believed to contain them and then just start digging through any rock outcropping that you can find. Searching the web, we see lots of dinosaur fossils mid-dig. These aren’t all faked events. Many great fossil discoveries are people digging something up in their back yard and recognizing that they have found something remarkable. It is part of the rock layer itself, which is completely unfakable.

            As for museums presenting casts, keep in mind that originals can be INCREDIBLY rare. Many are like one-of-a-kind rare. There are probably a billion crinoid stems for every Tyrannosaur. I found a gazillion crinoid stems…they were worthless in being so numerous. The bigger the creature, the rarer it would be to find one (generally speaking). This is why they are mainly casts. Be careful in letting someone sucker you in with insidious arguments. “Well they’re all casts, where are the REAL Tyrannosaur?” or whatever. Like I said, I don’t doubt that scientists could come to bad conclusions, but to doubt the physical reality of the fossils is listening to a snake oil salesman. Why would I doubt the existence of something that I have personally collected? I know right off the bat that something isn’t right there. There’s a danger in being skeptical of everything, like we are as readers of POM. It can lead us to swallowing some bad leads…things intentionally put out there to muddy the waters of the truth.

            You are right to be skeptical in general though. I can think of another case where for many years, scientists had interpreted the long neck of an old sea creature as being the tail of a land creature. Things like that are real and they happen. People are stupid, so you can question scientific conclusions, but not the physical existence of the fossils. I mean, what would be the benefit to anyone for doctor up a fossil to claim some giant land creature was actually a sea creature, or vice versa or whatever? Either way in that case, we’d still be talking about a very real fossil. Sure, the fossil record probably is imperfect due to the limitations of human intelligence, but the bottom line reality is that global rock records detail a history of life on planet earth across the last 500 million years.

            Like

          10. Fauxlex, I get the sense you are rejecting the idea of dino fakery out of hand, without even a cursory glance at the skeptics’ arguments? Please at least see Eric Dubay’s case, and address his points, before writing it off.

            Also you keep conflating the reality of some fossils with the reality of all fossils.

            This thread is hard to manage now.. Maybe Mark will do a post just on dinos? Anyway… Maybe dinos are real, however, if you read any books on the dino hunters… They are filled with the usual red flags and shady characters. Whether 1800s or modern, dino hunters seem to be characters in a contrived narrative. It at least bears closer scrutiny. Also note the heavy promotion by Crichton, Spielberg, and kid’s entertainment.

            Like

          11. I mean, your original question was whether I thought dinosaur fossils were real. I do. It relates to my point about how being universally skeptical can make us a little TOO open to alternative ideas even when there is really no value in considering them. Case in point, I see that this person you point me to is also a Flat Earther. As a person who independently has verified the reality of fossils, it is true that I really do dismiss the guy you’re referencing out of hand. I admit this with pride. Sometimes, the correct act is dismissing something out of hand so as to not allow it to corrupt your mind. Recall, I KNOW that fossils are real. I have admitted to you that fraud can definitely be found in the fossil world. What more would you want from me? Your guy would essentially be a corruption of what I know is real. Why would I entertain that? Why do you expect that I should? It’d be like a person telling you they were a true eyewitness to an event and you saying, “but why aren’t you taking this other theory seriously?”. They shouldn’t entertain that. They saw it for themselves. I know that fossils are real. Mine are Silurian, but it supports the mountain of evidence that, broadly speaking, the fossil record is not fraudulent outside of maybe some aberrant cases. They are really there, in the ground/rock itself. We don’t always need to take “alternative” theories seriously. In fact, it’s extremely dangerous to accept any alternative theory as being valuable, when it goes against something you KNOW is real. If this guy believes that all dinosaur fossils are fraudulent, then yes, I dismiss him out of hand with pride.


            How would your guy explain the mountain of evidence of dinosaur fossils being pulled out of the ground? All a vast conspiracy? Sometimes it is legitimate to consider it could be a vast conspiracy. This is not one of those cases.

            Also keep in mind, you have told me to look this guy up without really specifically saying what his points are, but then you criticize me that I haven’t taken him seriously? Really? If this guy is worth anything, then actually tell me exactly what his claims are and what his evidence is. Don’t just blindly tell me “well this guy thinks it’s all fake, look it up”, and react when I continue to tell you that fossils are unequivocally real. Why and how would or could one entire specific era of fossils be “fake”? Who benefits? How would they be able to hide the truth when any random guy can dig up fossils for themselves? Surely he doesn’t suggest that ALL dinosaur fossils are manufactured and somehow put into the ground all around the globe? You haven’t said what specifically this guy claims, beyond a dangerously vague suggestion that literally all dinosaur fossils are completely fake. This is a whopper of a statement, and one that requires more than “well museums display casts”. This is the sign of a corrosive source. It leads you to blindly question something with insidious arguments, and teaches you to disregard valid counter-evidence like first-hand accounts of the people who dig up these fossils. It gets to the point where you try to twist anything logically related to fossils into how it could be completely fake. What you’ve suggested is more than just some cases of bad science or fraud, it is that ALL dinosaur fossils are somehow fake. I do admit, that’s a non-starter for me. The right kind of person can make a compelling argument that the sky is orange. That doesn’t mean that I should listen to his case. I can see the sky. It is blue.

            In the end, if he’s a Flat Earther saying that an entire geological era of fossils is completely fraudulent, then yes, I think he’s a crank and I dismiss him out of hand. Sometimes it’s best to dismiss something out of hand, so as to not let it pollute your grasp on the truth. That might be the whole purpose of this source…like Miles Mathis. He sucks you in with interesting or seductive ideas, but then he just completely pollutes your mind while he has access to it. If he’s making vast numbers of people question the very existence of fossils, then he’s dangerous and should not be supported in any way, shape, or form. He is trying to pollute people’s minds.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. From what I can tell of the guy you mentioned, his game is using NLP and saying “allegedly” and “supposedly” a lot, even when there is nothing in doubt about the site in question. The mere repetition of “allegedly” is trying to connect deeply in the minds of listeners. They “supposedly” found 6,000 dinosaur samples in the dig. Well…did they? Then there’s nothing to suppose…they did. So the insidious use of language here is a huge red flag. He is also trying to get you to conflate numerous things. This idea that when scientists find 70% of a Tyrannosaur skeleton and use other existing samples to fill in the remaining 30% to present to people a full skeleton. He presents this concept as though they are finding one bone and making it all up. This is intentionally presented in a conflating way. The guesswork is a very educated guesswork, and even in the rare instances where they are wrong in that, we are still talking about a very real millions year old large reptile skeleton here. That is not in question. This guy is VERY corrosive, clever in his deceptive arguments. Truly a dangerous person who I feel must be intentional in his efforts to pollute people’s minds.

            Furthermore, his arguments about how we only suddenly started finding fossils in the 1800’s and 1900’s are incredibly misleading and deceptive. People WERE finding fossils before this, but there was not the scientific framework of stratigraphy and the history of life to make sense of them. They were mostly thought of as being maybe only a thousand years old. You see a large leg bone and in the 1700’s, you figure it must have been a giant horse leg or something. The ancient Chinese thought they were dragons.

            This guy has no actual case. The fossils are real. The guesswork is based on known science. The discoveries are mainly within the last few hundred years for very legitimate reasons. This guy MUST be hired to pollute minds, because all his arguments boil down to using clever language to deeply embed unreasonable doubts into people’s minds who do not know better.

            Guys like him, those who intentionally muddy the waters, are who make it SO difficult for people to know which alternative theories have credence and which don’t. This is why those like him are intentionally hired to push ridiculous ideas full of misdirection. That way, the average person cannot see the forest for the trees.

            Like

          13. Fauxlex, I can’t really make a case while typing on my phone in this unwieldy thread. Also I think we’re talking past each other somewhat.. Maybe if this were actual conversation I could make my views a bit more clear.

            If I get to a keyboard anytime soon I’ll try to answer some of the questions and issues you have with the dino skepticism. If not, hopefully we can pick it up in some future thread.

            Like

          14. The people who discovered fossils could be the shadiest bunch of characters in the history of mankind, and it still wouldn’t have anything to do with the fossils really being there in the ground. I am still not clear what it is that you specifically claim? Doesn’t matter to me if it’s Dubay or Dubay-adjacent. If you’re not a dinosaur denier, then you certainly do a good impression of one. You seem to want to SAY that you have a more nuanced opinion on the matter, but there hasn’t been any evidence of that. For all I know at this point, you’re just trolling me. Nobody points to a source that they have no interest in, especially not one that crazy. And yes, I said crazy. It’s a pejorative on alternative blogs I’m sure, but this Dubay dinosaur stuff is straight loony-bin! The kind of thing so wild, you’ve got to think the person doing it is just trying to see how far they can push the crazy.

            You’re saying it’s legitimate to question whether a 50-100 million year sized era in the fossil record is either partially or entirely made up. Again, even if some clown inserted the Jakoff-asaur in the fossil record, again why do you think this is relevant to the overall reality of the existence of dinosaur fossils? You can’t raise wild, unsupportable doubts and maintain them in the face of direct, contradicting counter-evidence. Then you’re the true believer. You started this thread to ask how to convince a true believer about something. Well, you’re not ready, TimR, because you yourself are so hardened in wild (or wild-adjacent) beliefs that you won’t even concede to a fossil collector that fossils, broadly speaking, are real. That’s…impressive. I’m really on the fence about whether you’re even genuine at this point. I wanted to try and lead you from the weeds, but you’re apparently very content being out there in the weeds. Have fun. I tried.

            Like

          15. Keep in mind, they could all be 33rd level Freemasons and that wouldn’t mean there aren’t really creatures in the ground going back 500 million years! And honestly, if you’re not a Dino denier, you’re certainly feeding the beast by pointing to this guy. I’m ALL for a wild theory, but I’m telling you, this guy is a false messenger. BELIEVE me. You started this thread asking how to convince a true believer, well…you haven’t even let a fossil collector sway you on the subject of the broad existence of fossils! That’s where it has gotten frustrating. I looked into your source. I was horrified. If I thought it had ANY merit, I would tell you. Like I said, I’m not convinced in evolution and I’m sure there’s been plenty of fraud! Just don’t let it sucker you into a truly bonkers distortion.

            Like

      2. Okay Fauxlex, let me try to respond to some of your concerns with even questioning the reality of dinos.

        First, I think there is just a common sense skepticism towards the idea of dinosaurs existing. At least, if one steps back from the familiarity with which we’ve seen them since childhood. The size claims for some of the Brontosaurus style dinos are phenomenal. And then take that size, and put a relatively tiny head at the end of these epic necks. Or the T-Rex with his famous puny arms. The stegosaurus with his cartoony/ comical tail spikes, and again with the pea-sized head.

        Maybe. Lots of weird animals out there. But I think it’s enough to warrant closer scrutiny.

        As an aside, I think it could be a tell that kids are naturally fascinated with dinos. As some podcaster pointed out whose name escapes me, she noticed that her favorite topics as a kid, were things she later learned were Fakes and Phonies. Their fascination is in part the sense of unreality that intuitively seeps through the official narrative.

        Second, it is at least curious that all the major dino hunters, from the very beginning, are guys that Mathis could write papers about. They’re all born on 8/8/88 and find dinos on 8/11/11 and such. Okay, I just made those dates up, but that’s about the long and short of it. They find 8 dino bones in a cave, or 33 dino eggs, or that SORT of thing. And they’re “of the families,” at least that’s clear with Cope and Marsh and other early guys. So if dinos are real, I guess they just feel the need to be cute about the stories they tell about it? Cope and Marsh had their famous bone wars, that were media soap opera of the late 1800s. Popularizing and selling dinos to the public.

        Third, and this is a big, big point to me— the THEORY of dinosaurs came prior to any significant dino fossil finds! Literally the few British guys who worked it out, had found among them a big strange tooth (possibly… highly subjective…) and similar ambiguous material. From that they extrapolated the entire dinosaur/ giant reptile concept. They created artist renderings just based on some extremely ambiguous and fragmentary fossil evidence.

        They built that dinosaur restaurant in the Crystal Palace, where high society types ate black tie dinners. (Perhaps by this time they had slightly more fossils, but I don’t think they had much. I would have to reread the history.) It was a public sensation, with cartoonists joking about it and tying it to the politics of the day. The concept amused and fascinated the public.

        THEN— over the next few decades, after this extraordinary hypothesis — they were suddenly able to find the most conclusive proof, the most striking, mind-blowing confirmation of these wild ideas. Pulling out stegosauri and brontosauri and T-Rex and all manner of creature from the Montana rocks, and other Western states. Convenientely funded by Rockefeller and Carnegie, who then put them on display in big city museums. Just like that. These supposedly quite rare circumstances, to fossilize a creature and then have it survive over the eons — and we have merely to get a bug to go looking, and suddenly you’re pulling them out of the rocks hand over fist.

        Hey, it raises a few eyebrows, that’s all I’m saying.

        You ask “why?” Why do such a thing? Well, go back a bit to the first dino discoveries. There was one in the Northeast that was major, the details escape me, but in any event, the local Natural History Museum of this Eastern burg had been dusty and forgotten. The new dino discovery (whether an alleged full skeleton, or just a fragment I forget — either way, they had a full cast or mock-up of the dino) did booming business. Suddenly “science” was capturing the public imagination. That’s good for the bottom line. Even more so, it’s good if you’re trying to sell any big propaganda narratives, such as Evolution. Or, more innocently perhaps, just interest children in science generally.

        Anyway, it’s still an open question for me. I’m NOT saying “dinos are fake,” I’m saying, hey what about this? And this? Is there more to the story? Is there some element of truth, being mixed with misdirection and fraud? Is it total fraud? Totally above board? And so on. I have more red flags but I think that’s enough to just make a case that it’s worth looking at, Fauxlex. Maybe you still find it ridiculous, if so, I hope you’ll address some of my points and show why they’re easily dismissed.

        Like

        1. “A common sense skepticism” is literally as far away from the ideas you’re buying into as I could possibly imagine. You are quite literally denying a basic and irrefutable reality because some guy has presented you with quasi-wealthy connections and irrelevant scientific errors. IF DINOSAURS AREN’T REAL THEN HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN ALL THOSE DINOSAUR BONES THAT ARE FOUND ALL OVER THE GLOBE CONSTANTLY? What you’ve said raises exactly ZERO eyebrows and makes me very concerned about the fact that you think these are compelling or even interesting ideas. Honestly, it sucks to witness that you’ve fallen prey to a guy trying to pollute your mind like this. None of these things you just said are actual arguments. The things you see as eyebrow raising quite simply…aren’t. Theory being proven by evidence isn’t a red flag. It’s just a good theory! Would you suggest that the only reason gravity exists is because a wealthy, well-connected guy had a theory about gravity? Of course not! This guy has scrambled your mind to such a degree that he has you mixing up cause and effect. Consider, even if the estimated upper end size of a specific dinosaur had been exaggerated…what do you think that matters??? What do you think is suggestive about a dinosaur actually being just 20 feet tall at its largest instead of an estimated 40 feet tall at its largest??? This doesn’t refute the reality of the giant ancient creature! Again, he’s trying to get you to conflate so many things. He sucks you in saying some random estimate was wrong, but then he corrupts you into thinking it means something relevant. Kids liking dinosaurs??? What on earth is that supposed to prove? They’re giant, carnivorous reptiles…of course kids like them! How do you not see that this guy is filling your head with nonsense? These points are attempts to pollute minds by making it seem like it’s all amiss and sinister. That IS very much like what a Miles Mathis would do, correct. Make it all seem shady and point out irrelevant mistakes, then use that opening to suggest through vague suggestion that it’s all fake. Like you said “raises some eyebrows, just saying”…no, it really doesn’t. It raises eyebrows that you think it raises eyebrows, even in the face of irrefutable evidence and people pointing out that all his words are deception.

          This guy you are quoting is just about the reddest red flag as controlled opposition that I’ve ever seen. He’s CLEARLY controlled opposition. An early and well-known Flat Earther with a 32nd degree Freemason in the family. TimR, you need to RUN away from this guy…as fast as you can. He is quite literally scrambling your brain. I mean, do you hear yourself? You think the strangeness of the creature is proof of something? Have you ever seen a platypus? How can you not see that these are not actual arguments? These are corrosive and insidious concepts meant to make you unable to accept reality. This guy is scrambling your brain, and I hope somehow you loosen his grip on your mind.

          Dinosaur fossils are real. I’m sure it has been played up plenty by Hollywood for profit, and I’m sure plenty of Chinese villagers have doctored up some fossils to make them seem cooler and more valuable…BUT THIS DOESN’T MEAN THAT THE FOSSILS THEMSELVES ARE FRAUDULENT. They are real. Say it with me…fossils are REAL. Dinosaur fossils are real. Eric Dubay is trying to pollute my mind. I will not let Eric Dubay pollute my mind.

          I’m sorry for saying this, but I am deeply concerned for you. You have given this guy too much credence and you need to find a way out. Don’t let him being technically right about 1% of things sucker you into buying the other 99%. That is what is happening here, and the 1% of things he says that are interesting are not worth the damage being done by your considering the other 99%.

          Like

          1. Fauxlex, I was trying to present the case in my own words there, and I’m not really a Dubay zombie as you would have it. Again, it’s hard to have a reasonable discussion bc you seem to project so much onto me. I tried to be clear that it’s just an “open question” for me yet you still cast me as a kind of sacrilegious “dino denier.” Personally, it’s another incredible narrative I’m being asked to take on authority, offered up by authorities who have proven untrustworthy in many other matters. Forgive me if I’m a little wary. But anyway I appreciate your perspective, it’s just something I’ll have to look into further. Incredibly obvious as it seems to you. To me it’s incredible that you can’t see how it at least LOOKS shady in some respects, but such is the nature of people with different worldviews trying to have a conversation.

            Like

        2. If, TimR, you are an honest person in pursuit of the truth, then I can condense my advice to you into one short concept: You have taken a wrong turn in your pursuit of the truth. Stop here, turn around, re-trace your steps and try to get back on a road that doesn’t intentionally lead you astray. It may be a slow and arduous process, but it is possible. Sooner or later you will come to recognize the ones on the road with evil intentions. Simply move on from them. Do not allow them to influence your perception of where the road leads.

          Like

          1. Fauxlex and TimR, THANK YOU for this thread. My ignorance of, and total lack of interest in, dinosaurs leaves me with nothing to contribute to this discussion, but I empathize with both of you in equal measure. I was mean to TimR for raising the same kinds of questions about the validity of MM he’s now raising about fossils, but I can imagine myself raising the exact same questions about dinosaurs he is if I gave a shit about them. And I’d be just as exasperated with him as you are, Fauxlex, if I had the knowledge and background that you have. Being a so-called “conspiracy theorist” in a world that accepts anything authority figures say is so fucking frustrating and reading this thread has been somehow cathartic.

            Like

          2. Honestly if Dubay is 1% interesting and 99% deception, then Miles Mathis is like 50% interesting, 50% deception. That’s why Miles really is one to pay attention to. Only distinction I made. You can’t feed the obviously wild ones. But it’s unbelievable what it looks like when you can be very confident something is misdirection / controlled opposition. Really changes how you feel it has to be approached. That’s why this is all such a minefield, and intentionally so. They want people running around like chickens with their heads cut off…I’m sure of that.

            This conversation…exhausting.

            Like

          3. Yes, I often feel like a chicken with its head cut off trying to separate truth from bullshit, and there are so few subjects I feel comfortably certain about the way you do with dinosaurs. I haven’t read Dubay, but I have been fooled by some rather flagrantly obvious controlled opposition in the past and it depresses me to admit that it will almost undoubtedly happen again.

            As for MM, he’s dropped from 50% interesting to maybe 5-10% for me. Now, I basically just check his website to see how long it’s been since his last upload. If there’s a long gap, I get excited, hoping we’re closer to the next chapter of whatever convoluted drama they’re cooking up for his eventual retirement or “death.” If they go with death, I’m guessing Apostle Josh will take over the narrative over at Cutting Through the Fog, so I peak in over there if the MM update page has been quiet for a while. It’s like waiting for a new season of a TV show.

            Like

          4. By that analogy, Mathis “re-runs” are my favorite. I think the best way to stay sharp is to unplug from the hive mind. Be independent, decide things for yourself. I like Mark’s blog a lot! He is good at opening up interesting topics worthy of consideration. You are right…MM is definitely past his prime. It’s so funny thinking about it like that, in terms of a show we all watch. That’s worth a good laugh!

            Like

          5. I don’t envy the MMG writers. Coming up with a final act must be a bitch. How do you compete with the ending of the Dave McGowan show? McGowan “died” maybe from decades of smoking cigarettes OR maybe because nefarious people in Intelligence poisoned one of his cigarettes. That gave them a nice long season of McGowan being brave and humble as he solicited donations and posted scary pictures of his cancer-ridden body and then, The End. MMG writers need to come up with a demise for Miles that’s similarly ambiguous–maybe he was murdered by The Man, maybe not–and that can whip his fans up emotionally so they send extra donations to help him before he “dies.” Quite a challenge.

            Maybe Mathis’s house will have some kind of lethal poison in its ventilation…or in a mold that was growing in the walls that he couldn’t see. Maybe it’s been there for a long time and he’s been breathing it without knowing it and that’s why he’s suddenly wasting away, or why (according to Josh) he was found dead in his home after rotting away at his laptop for two weeks. Maybe it had a slow but cumulative effect on his brain and that’s why his papers over the past few years have been increasingly sloppy, erratic and idiotic. Maybe The Man put the poison there, maybe not. Maybe all those ISP providers were in on it and that was why they refused to come out to his house to change his service, or maybe not. I guess I’d pitch something like that if I were in the writer’s room. Do you have any ideas? Maybe we should start a betting pool.

            Like

          6. I vote that he just disappears without a trace and we just hear about it in like 6 months in the Taos Daily News or something. Less bombastic, more mysterious. Then we’ll be left wondering all the things you’ve said. Did the Man finally take him out? Did he “retire” to Onassis Island in Greece with JFK Jr.? Who knows. The Man, the Myth. MM.

            Like

          7. Well, Fauxlex, you obviously don’t work for the Deep State. Your ending sucks because it doesn’t give readers a reason to get all panicked and emotional and send money.

            I’m really liking my idea that he was poisoned by a toxin in his house. He doesn’t die, but he wastes away in the hospital. Maybe, after he’s out of the house for a little while and his head clears, he’s able to cut through the fog (see what I did there?) and realize that all that genealogy stuff was bullshit. If we send money, he can afford a treatment that might restore his thinking ability enough so that he can write papers at the Manson/JFK level again. Kind of like when Roseanne Barr cleared the slate of her show’s totally nonsensical ninth season by saying it was all just stuff her character wrote in a novel, thus allowing them to reboot the show 20 years later as if none of that 9th season bullshit happened. MMG fans will send money filled with hope but…oh, what a shame…the poison was just too toxic and he passed away. But at least we tried. Sniffle.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. Fauxlex, your exasperation is unnecessary, there’s no reason to pummel someone who is just studying an issue, or doing research, such as asking a dino expert like yourself. Maybe I’ll eventually reach the same conclusion you have, so why be so emotional about it?

            I would still like to see my actual questions addressed as to why they’re ridiculous, and not just waved away as ridiculous on their face. Surely it is curious that all major dino hunters have spook flags. Surely it is curious that for hundreds of years, the great intellects of Europe missed dinos, and then conveniently made a flurry of discoveries right around the time of Darwin and other revolutions in science. It is extraordinary that their pathetic fragmentary fossil evidence allowed them to predict dinos— and that it was so spectacularly confirmed in a series of made-for-newspaper expeditions funded by the same men who implemented Rockefeller medicine, modern schooling, and all the other 20th century frauds. You can’t just brush that away with a hand wave.

            Liked by 1 person

        3. And another question… I honestly don’t remember my school textbooks mentioning dinos whatsoever. Maybe they were mentioned in passing, but it certainly wasn’t played up. Given that kids do love dinos, you’d think all of 4th grade would be given to the topic… Entire textbooks on just dinos.. But no. I had dino books as a kid, but they were extracurricular.

          So once again, my eyebrow is raised… Is there some strange “honor among propagandists”? They limit the extent of the outright fakery included in official textbooks? Some side project to make school as dull as possible? I just ask the question, that’s all I can do. Hoping the dino experts will patiently explain to those of us under the malign hypnotic sway of Mr. Dubay.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Holy crap, TimR. He has already exhaustively addressed the questions you claim he is “waving away.” His position is that rich people discovering dino fossils/lying about or fudging the science on dino fossils/exploiting dino fossils for profit does not mean there are no dino fossils. I don’t think he could have been any clearer about that. And with just a modicum of critical thinking, we may safely assume he’d apply the same logic to your comment about your education and say that TimR’s school not teaching him about dino fossils doesn’t mean there are no dino fossils. What you’re doing isn’t “study” or “research.” You’re asking him to validate your doubts, and when he tells you why he doesn’t share your doubts, you badger him by rewording arguments he has already forcefully rejected. What are you trying to accomplish?

            Like

          2. ScottRC, I guess he did talk about fake Chinese fossils.. And the idea experts might fudge size from 20 feet to 40 feet or something. Is that what you’re referencing? I guess all concerns were so quickly brushed aside, I had a different takeaway.. Mostly changing the subject to concern over my allegedly being too credulous of bad sources.

            Tell me this, he seems contradictory when he says,
            A. Dino fossils are ubiquitous, being found all over the world by regular people
            B. Dino fossils are extremely rare and must be kept in storage, with only casts shown in museums.

            No?

            Like

          3. Near-complete specimens of certain dinosaur species are indeed quite rare. Fragments, however, are ubiquitous, and we can match the fragments with the known complete skeletons to understand what it is that we’re seeing. If I had not independently, personally pulled out vast samples of fossils more ancient than dinosaurs, without any guidance whatsoever from a professional scientist, then I would probably be willing to concede to you that your skepticism is fair question or whatever it is you want acknowledged. But I DO have such knowledge, and I DO know enough to know that this source is purely deception. There is nothing at the heart of his statements but deception. The problem with the logic being displayed is that it tries to build a case based on irrelevant information. Things that do not actually relate directly to the physical existence of these fossils in the ground…the only important fact. They want you asking every question possible except for the one question that actually matters…are these fossils really in the ground? How exactly could every fossil being pulled out of the ground from an entire geological era be planted or fraudulent? This implies a conspiracy more vast than any even in the wildest realms of conspiracy theory. It is like someone finding a gold nugget while searching through rocks and being told that there is a theory that gold is not really in the ground. You could make as many shady connections you want with gold, and how gold was first discovered, and occult uses of gold, etc. This would not have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that the person in front of you is holding this gold nugget in their hands that they just found. People can show you these fossils while they are still in the ground. Unless your source actually has an explanation for that, then all of this is a vast web of misinformation designed to convince you that up is down. You want me to consider that’s it’s a “fair” or “reasonable” thing to question, when I could show you 100 fossils that I personally found. It’s not a fair or reasonable or common sense supposition, even if I can understand why you think it is. This whole dinosaur fossil “not real” theory is empty. It will tell you everything it can to make you believe that dinosaur fossils are not real, but then will never actually acknowledge that they’re claiming dinosaurs are fake. That’s swallowing a big gulp of snake oil. It dances around the heart of its own case and will only engage in weird deceptions rather than an actual case of how these fossils could possibly be fake. It is a classic case of an ill intentioned person saying, “yeah, I bet I could convince people that the sky is actually pink!” and then building a 200 point case that answers every question except the ONE that actually matters. Everyone with eyes (knowledge) can see that the sky is blue. The evidence of the reality of fossils is right in front of you, you are just choosing to not see it.

            Like

          4. TimR, I probably shouldn’t have jumped in because I actually don’t care about dino fossils. If you do, why not do some more research on the subject that goes beyond Dubay and other dinosaur deniers? You’ve admitted you’re not much of a scientist and are intimidated by the subject of climate science. I’m not a scientist either. As far as I know, neither is Fauxlex, but he appears to have spent more time studying it–and to have more passion for it–than you or I. When I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, I may ask questions of people who appear to know more than I do, but when my ignorant questions become exasperating and pointless, I try to shut up and move on.

            Like

          5. I am definitely not a scientist, although if I had unlimited funds and time I probably would go back to school for a PhD in one of the natural sciences. To pull a Mathis, I definitely blew the curve in the Geology electives that I took. I recall a class called “History of Life” where I scored a perfect 100 on the final exam and the class average was something like 60.

            https://ibb.co/Gv65PDr

            Here’s one of my favorite of my Silurian dolomite fossils. It is an Orthoceras nautiloid sitting on Favosites, a tabulate coral. Two in one and it sits up very nicely for display.

            Like

  4. Thanks all for your replies. It’s a bit daunting to think of getting up to speed on the science side of things, really, not sure I have the drive for it, just for the sake of discussing it on his terms.

    Like

    1. The science is not complicated – all that Climatologists do is collect data and analyze and make predictions. Their predictions for over 20 years now have been wrong. They can be ignored. As Michael Crichton said in his book State of Fear, a climate model ought to be ignored until it is shown to have made correct predictions for ten years. Twenty would be better.

      Skeptics are often scientists – in fact, most of them are in some form science-based. Craig Idso studies CO2 – https://www.cato.org/people/craig-d-idso. Never thought I’d be promoting Cato, but it is what it is. Richard Linzden is an atmospheric physicist who was tenured at MIT but had to retire in order to speak out. William Happer is a physicist who chaired the DOE Office of Science under Bush I, and has the honor of having been fired by Al Gore in 1993. Even then Gore was working the censorship angel. Happer did not think the ozone hole was a real problem. Gore used an underling to bring him the news, a coward even then.

      That’s a small sampling, and they are all over YouTube if you know to look for them. On the Google they will turn up first on the DeSmog Blog, set up to attack skeptics.

      And, for easing into it, check out Inconvenient Facts, by Gregory Whitestone, 123 pages plus references, detailed charts and tables throughout, easily understandable. Whitestone merely takes the facts and assembles them. I just randomly opened to page 93 and a chart showing that the frequency of hurricanes, 1970 to 2018, is a chart with much variability that translates to a straight line. Intensity has lessened slightly, but is also basically a straight line. Nothing has changed in that time. That’s just data, but it contradicts the “science” of climate change.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. ScottRC, where did I say Dubay is the only study I’ve done? I just said he had a good rundown of reasons why dino skepticism is warranted.

    Fauxlex has more fossil and collecting experience than I do. That doesn’t mean he’s an expert on the extent of fakery in science or media. And his kneejerk faith that dinos are aboveboard is not reassuring, given that’s not his specialty. He has no humility on the subject, just exasperated contempt for my sincere questions.

    I pity you having no interest in dinos. Not sure what else to say. I’m glad I still have curiosity about such a crazy story, that’s still being sold to the public, and ties in with the fascinating late 19th century revolution in science that formed the modern scientific worldview.

    And also… Why is everyone so cranky? My “ignorant” questions are exasperating and I should just shut up… Geez. I thought questions were the way to clear up ignorance, a humble seeking for answers. Especially on a site like POM. This is the type of reaction I would expect from people who buy media narratives wholesale.

    Like

    1. This is where I feel you may be trolling, because this whole “why is everyone so cranky” thing is a completely ridiculous thing for you to say. You’ve used a person saying that they’re a fossil collector to try and validate your unreasonable doubts about the existence of fossils! Of course I’m cranky! And you really won’t stop, and refuse to see the light in any way. You want me to validate your doubts that I’ve very clearly shown to be unreasonable and deceptive. It’s frustrating. VERY frustrating. You claim to not be a zombie of Dubay, but that’s certainly what you’re acting like. Feeding the beast so aggressively makes me think you could have bad intentions. You are either a troll, or you are so far gone off the deep end that I’m not sure I can help you. Either way, this conversation has really run its course.

      Like

      1. Fauxlex, who’s trolling who? I “refuse to see the light” like you’re some beacon of enlightenment on the internet? I just wanted your perspective as a Silurian fossil collector, had no idea you would react so emotionally, and create a strawman image of my ideas that all further effort has been powerless to change. No— according to you, I’m a Dubay zombie who worships his every word and disbelieves in all fossils.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. You’re treating me like I have no specific expertise in this area. That you should be able to usurp a conversation about my fossil collection and turn it into a series of unsupported doubts about the very reality of fossils. You think that you can do that, and then complain that your argument (or lack thereof), was roundly dismissed. I’m sorry, but that’s very annoying and very entitled. The way you imagine it, I should have been peachy with your stuffing this fake fossil stuff in my face. Get real. Seriously, in more ways than one, get real man.

          Like

          1. If you reread my earlycomments here, I clearly said it’s an OPEN QUESTION for me whether dino fossils are fake, real, or some combination thereof… I’m not insisting ANYONE disbelieve in fossils.. Regardless how many times you want to project things onto me or misconstrue my words.

            Like

        2. And at this point, you are responding in a way that I cannot reconcile an honest person responding. You keep denying that you are a Dubay zombie or mouth piece. Again, if you’re not a Dubay mouth piece, then you sure act like one. At first, all I told you was to dismiss the source. Then I looked and REALLY told you to dismiss the source. I’m fine if I didn’t sway you, but the fact that you keep repeating these things like they’re relevant. You haven’t quit. That means, like I said, you’re either more lost than I could possibly help with or yes you really are just a Dubay mouth piece. You didn’t want to consider my facts, you wanted me to feed your doubts. Well sorry, I’m not having any of it. I’m no beacon of light, but I can call a pile of crap a pile of crap. We aren’t going to convince each other, so this isn’t serving a purpose. It sucks, but that’s the way it is.

          Like

    2. “This is the type of reaction I would expect from people who buy media narratives wholesale.”

      This is just a really sad quote. You want us to buy any theory, no matter how wild and unsupportable, or else yeah we’re all just buying that media narrative wholesale. That’s rich. I mean, that’s really funny. Good stuff. Sorry, TimR, I don’t really buy that you have pure intentions anymore. You saw a person who independently was able to validate the physical reality of fossils and you sprang into action to muddy the waters. That or you are truly just off the deep end, and not really an honest researcher. You will believe any snake oil salesman who crosses your path and defend him to the end. Again, either way this conversation no longer serves any purpose.

      Don’t challenge an alternative blog reader that if they don’t swallow any old snake oil, then it means they’re buying into the media narrative wholesale. That’s absurd, and it’s YOU pushing snake oil on us. It’s not black and white. You don’t either buy every alternative theory or you’re a media fed zombie. What a joke you are, for saying that and expecting to be taken seriously.

      Like

      1. Again, you’re arguing with a strawman. By “reaction”, I just meant all the hostility and unwillingness to discuss matters in a calm reasoned way. That’s the kind of reaction one often gets when discussing skepticism with people whose identity is very fragile and bound up in accepting official narratives.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Reasoned?! Yikes. Reasoned…

          You haven’t wanted a reasoned debate. And nothing has been strawman. I have argued against the source YOU pointed to. You said, hey, do you think dinosaur fossils are real, and what do you think of Eric Dubay? Me tearing into Dubay with passion is not a straw man…it is my thoughts on the source that you wanted my thoughts on. Seriously?

          I still really don’t understand your responses here…getting bad vibes. It feels like all that matters to you is casting doubt on the reality of fossils, and slinging mud at me because I have first hand experience collecting fossils. Reasoned is the last thing that you’ve wanted any of this to be. You have wanted an equal playing field for two ideas that are not equal in quality. Pushing bad sources and their ideas is extremely dangerous and damaging.

          You can say anything you want from here. I’m done engaging with you.

          Like

          1. You tearing into Dubay’s IDEAS, fine, but you kept saying he had brainwashed me and worried about my credulity, the danger of extreme skeptics or questionable sources online misleading people… All this tangential stuff that focused on me, or on Dubay, and speculating what we represent, etc etc, instead of just talking dinos.

            Also when you do talk facts, you’ve made some bad leaps of logic, one of which I pointed out, and you responded with more faulty logic. I’ll detail it tomorrow when I get a chance.

            Like

  6. P.s. and come off this “that’s not research” slur. I guess I need to get a phD before I can describe my activities that way? I’ve read a dozen or more books of popular history about dinos, so I’m more knowledgeable than most about the official stories. The details are hard to retain, but I know the lay of the land. I’ve also looked at specialist books on the topic at a university library, to try to judge its credibility. Granted it’s a side interest that waxes and wanes, but I didn’t just read Dubay and then claim to have all the answers.

    Like

    1. Havent believed in dinosaurs for a very long time myself as you said Tim how convenient discoveries started happening at the most convenient time of selling evolution. There have been tons of mainstream finds that turned out to be fakes. Evolution is strong in freemasonic literature.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. This is why you don’t point to a source like Dubay. I’m sure he has followers and they’ll come rushing in. Hello Bob, if you don’t believe in dinosaurs because Freemasonry exists, what else don’t you believe in because Freemasonry exists? Trees? Those big stumpy things aren’t really there…all a vast conspiracy. Sketchy, ill-intentioned people existing should not make you doubt things that you can see with your own eyes. Like trees, the sky being blue, etc. “WELL DID YOU KNOW THE FIRST PERSON TO STUDY THE SKY WAS FROM ROYALTY”. Hmm…okay, but this has nothing to do with the sky being blue. It’s right there. Go find pictures of dinosaur bones being dug out of the earth itself. They are there. You can choose not to look if you want, but that’s your blindness.

        How do you account for dinosaur bones being ubiquitous in the ground, if you “don’t believe in dinosaurs”? Every single one of them is a complete forgery? You haven’t said, on record, that this is what you believe. Oh, and both the bones and the dating methods are apparently in on this together, right? For…reasons…? To perpetuate the BIG PALEO myth that actually brontosaurus wasn’t quite as tall as estimated? Heavy stuff, Bob, heavy stuff. And me? I’m not just some random guy with a fossil collection, I’m on the side of BIG PALEO. Out to stop crusading blind folks such as yourself.

        Like

        1. Was just adding to convo never said I dont believe in dinosaurs because freemasonry exists. In accusing of conflating you’re conflating. Before I ever heard the term freemason I didnt believe in dinosaurs, before I ever found out my grandfather and a cousin were freemasons I didnt believe in dinosaurs. At the same time its something I dont really care about. More interesting to me has been studying the methodology of those in control from ages ago till now, the strategies, the symbols in the rule and maintenance of controlling consciousness. Dinos just a small part.

          Like

          1. My point was that you believe, at least in part, that since fossils came out around the time of the theory of evolution (Freemason connection), you think fossils are all fake or made up. You let the Freemason connection support this notion, in part, that fossils are all made up. You have made connections which were based on a conflated connection (fossils and evolution), then supported your notion with irrelevant information (Freemason connection to evolution).

            I have no idea what you imagine I could be conflating. You seem proud that you think all fossils are fake, and like you don’t even care to know explain yourself. Good for you, you are a true believer. As much as this thread has officially been hijacked, I would really love to hear your case for why you’ve known for so long that dinosaurs are completely fake. I’m all ears. How do they fake all the fossils?

            Like

          2. Honestly, tell me more. TimR seemed to shy away from claiming dinosaurs were fake when his source of Dubay was smashed. Tell me about how they fake all these dinosaur fossils. It must be a huge effort. I would love to know all about it.

            Bob, what can you tell us to support the idea that dinosaurs are not real?

            Like

      2. I’ll close with an open question to Bob and TimR. Bob just raised evolution with fossils as though one cannot exist without the other. I myself have said that I am not a fan of evolution, but am certain about the physical reality of fossils. More cases of people conflating important details. So here is my open question.

        Did you ever consider that the presence of Freemasons in early fossil discovery was because they sought to hoard this knowledge for themselves? This would be much more in line with their aims. This doesn’t imply that the fossils aren’t there…it implies that the Freemasons wanted to be the ones with the best and truest knowledge of what these fossils mean for the history of life on earth. Did you ever consider that this is also why they seek to convince you that fossils do not exist? So that this knowledge becomes under their control? This makes far more sense than anything else. And I can tell you, with certainty, that these fossils really are there in the ground.

        Like

        1. I wonder if it is even more basic, having nothing to do with fossils, per se, but rather with collection of knowledge. I am perplexed by the current state of astrophysics and quantum mechanics, that the entire fields seem flooded with nonsense and tools and fools promoting bad ideas. Yet within it must be a few people who have a good hold on the knowledge. It is as if the bad science is given to the public as a plaything while the real science is kept secret.

          I am glad you guys had this discussion, as it clears things up for me. I never for a second doubted the existence of fossils, just the validity of fossil record and that grand history of the planet geologists tout as being extremely accurate. Some people have pointed out that our planet would have to have been a very different place to be able to support such massive beasts as dinosaurs upright. That doesn’t mean the fossils are fake, as there are too many projects underway to uncover them and the findings are real. It is the conclusions drawn therefrom that point to a different kind of place than exists now. I don’t think we on the public non-science side of this begin to imagine how little actual evidence supports such massive conclusions.

          This takes me back to another episode that has left me perplexed, that of the Velikovsky affair. It stands out but has never been adequately explained. I came away with the feeling (I makes mistakes, you know) that this was an honest and courageous man. Was his sin then to release forbidden knowledge? Is it the same with the fossil record? Are there two threads, one for public and children, another kept out of view? Anyway, only one of Velikovsky’s books, Earth in Upheaval, rests in my mind as a lasting legacy, as it does nothing more than ask questions that current science cannot answer … how did all of this come to be? “Science” steadfastly ignores the questions.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Thanks Mark, well said. That is what has been particularly frustrating, because I have repeatedly said that I am not a big believer in evolution and that I acknowledge there are cases of fraud or misleading science. I’m giving a ton of ground there…I don’t swallow anything wholesale. But for some reason with Dubay, that isn’t good enough. It has to be that we think it’s fair to question whether all the fossils are fake. That’s why I am saying I know it’s deception. All the clever language is framed around making people believe that fossils are fake without him ever actually saying that fossils are fake. It’s very clever and carefully crafted stuff.

            The evidence supporting the physical reality of fossils is plentiful, including dinosaur fossils. However, I completely agree that we are not privy to key information relevant to all of the sciences (and indeed the history of life on earth). This IS likely the whole point. Control the narrative, restrict information.

            Like

          2. Just a few weeks back we sat through a presentation by a man who has spent decades uncovering dinosaur fossils in Madagascar, a nice man and sincere, no funny business. Unfortunately, I slept through the presentation, nothing personal. I was just very tired that night.

            The problem I had with the presentation was not the subject matter, but the professorial tone, handing down information from a pedestal, where PhDs expect to reside. There was Q&A but no real questioning of his findings, as that would be greeted with detached superiority. He was doing us all a favor by mingling with the peasantry. Again, a nice man, but this is the attitude they naturally adopt – too much time being worshipped by students rather than pilloried with doubtful skepticism.

            Like

          3. No question, and probably why I never stuck it out with a degree in a scientific field. That was really my most fundamental point in this debate…question the scientific conclusions all you want, or point me to a relevant fraud…I’m on board and I’ll listen and take it seriously. The specimens themselves though? Real. The aberrant cases of fraud or scientific deception are unrelated to the basic, fundamental existence of real fossil samples, which do exist.

            Like

      3. Mason’s & Cabalist believe they are their own gods. They need the evolution lie to justify their status as ‘god’. And the elite or ‘royals’ are of the same faith. Luciferian.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. Second site in a row to give me a “Share” link that immediately stops working. Odd. Funny how much flak you catch for saying you collect fossils on the internet. This relates really well to the main quote on POM…it is easier to fool someone than convince them they’ve been fooled.

      Like

  7. I jump in a bit later, but on Gaia’s timescale still fresh (she is old, but I have no clue how old, like nobody has).

    I would like to clear up some common misconceptions I see repeated too much by people without thinking what they are saying (A l’aveuglette):

    1 – there is no “Dino Hoax”, there is a fossil hoax
    2 – “oil comes from dinosaurs”
    3 – abiogenic oil hypothesis
    4 – other conspie memes

    1 – no “Dino Hoax”, but a fossil hoax

    Sorry to disappoint you Fauxlex, but I don’t believe for a second that this articulated skeleton of what looks like a hadrosaur (I am not a dino expert), the duck-billed one, is a real fossilized skeleton found like this in situ.

    I don’t want you to believe me, I want you to look at the geology and imagine how this possibly could work. I will explain much more after your reaction, but you do your own thinking first please.

    What is the source even of this photo? Where is this and which genus is this supposed to be? There is no context to the photo, which is not necessary to show its fakeness, but that is crucial for yourself to understand what is going on. Or not, rather.

    The term “dino hoax” is wrong. It draws the lines completely arbitrarily and ridiculously. What would happen in the present day if suddenly let’s say “birds are a hoax”. That has implications on the whole ecosystem, it is foolish to separate that (that is what NASA cum suis do; present isolated crealities, created “realities”, that cannot physically exist in isolation; 2 or 3-body gravitational problems and derived Langrangian “””points”””, it’s hilarious).

    There is a fossil hoax, even admitted by the mainstream. Chinese fake fossils are common, as are “trilobites” from Morocco. These are just the surface examples, people may dig for more.

    I have seen live in the field, not in a museum or so, fossils (bones and egg shell fragments) attributed to dinosaurs. Can I prove they belonged to what are called dinosaurs? No. Can I disprove it? Neither…

    So if they didn’t belong to dinosaurs, because that whole group (and the rest outside of it not?) is suddenly “fake”, then what did they belong to? Come up with an alternative taxonomy, explanations, clear criteria on the basis of which fossils (and their taxonomic interpretations) are fake, which are real and what that means. Do the work. Like I do with Nazionism and much more.

    More about this after your reaction Fauxlex. I am curious about your views on this hypothetical hadrosaur and why you believe this particular example is possibly real.

    2 – “oil comes from dinosaurs”

    I don’t know who brought this thought into the world, but it must have been some trolling teen who doesn’t know anything about what is going on. Which is fine. It is the brainless parrots who just repeat this nonsense. Especially those daring to call themselves truth seekers (or think they have some higher position in that sense or so).

    Oil is formed mostly from algae, bacteria and oceanic plankton, with also plants forming oil. Study kerogen types, macerals, source rock analysis, and more. Anyone interested I can expand on this in more detail.

    3 – abiogenic oil hypothesis

    This idea, commonly found together with the previous parroted conspie meme, is rooted in a Soviet publication, but not empirical research!, of the early 1980s. What happened was that they didn’t have an outcropping source rock in the vicinity of the remote Siberian basin, but they had an active working petroleum system and thus oil and gas accumulations.

    Then some dude (I have the original publication somewhere) postulated an abiogenic oil idea that it should have come from the underlying granites (basement).

    Nobody has ever shown any successful experiment explaining how the complex mix of complex molecules that constitutes petroleum (everything, oil is just a subset) was formed by abiogenic granites comprising mostly silicates.

    That while anyone who can chip off a piece of highly organic rock (like the Marcellus Shale in NE US and SE Canada), put it in a test tube and heat it, sees oil and gas forming right in front of their very eyes.

    Please get this widely programmed idea out of your heads and of those around you. Use your own observational skills and Gaia’s allowance to test her laws live.

    4 – other conspie memes

    A – “chem”trails – soon I will publish a video proving the chemical impossibility of “chem”trails. Stay tuned for that.
    B – Greta Thunberg is related to Svante Arrhenius – even Miles Mathis’ writer parroted that meme, which is debunked in 20 min of basic Geni research – see Fakeopedia
    C – Greta Thunberg “can see CO2” – I have verified this with a native Swedish speaker and this is not literally what her mother said in her book. – translation at Fakeopedia
    D – “space is a vacuum” – don’t repeat this bullshit meme. The claim about deep space is not a vacuum. A vacuum is a physical impossibility anyway; it works asymptotically; we can only approach a vacuum, never reach it.

    The claimed conditions of space are, no idea who came up with this, because the ones who said they went there must have frozen to death with their “up to -250 F” new space suits (eh no, that is the same as Apollo used and is just -157 Celsius…).

    T = -270 C = 3 K
    P = 10^-16 bar

    So very low pressure and very low temperature. But NOT a vacuum. Repeating that is a strawman attack on the presented model. I have done various podcasts about this and for those who prefer reading there is the excellent thread started by Boethius at Cluesforum. You find my first post on page 31 or so (as my sister Selene).

    E – Flat Earth – everyone can and should do the Orion test, especially in this season. Orion rises in the northern hemisphere “upright”. The further south you go, the more it turns and here just north of the equator Orion comes up sideways. In the southern hemisphere he comes up upside down (feet, then belt, then shoulders).

    This effect can only happen if the Earth is a convex sphere.

    The beauty of it is, that it doesn’t matter what the stars of Orion are. They can be “lights in the sky”, bags of popcorn or the hit singles of Michael Jackson, it doesn’t matter how far or what, what it means is that the Earth can only be a convex sphere because no other shape (topology, geometry; reality; Gaia’s laws) can produce this effect.

    Do the test at home and bury this nasty psyop forever!

    I have listed more conspie memes, but I think it is enough for now, glad to explain more where desired.

    Like

    1. Look, Gaia, I appreciate your reply but am confused by your logic on the first part (dinosaurs). You didn’t say anything about why or how this photo could be fraudulent, just that you don’t believe it. There are thousands of other photographs and first-hand accounts. If we’re just allowed to wave those all away, then you’ll definitely never be convinced. You’d be choosing to not let yourself be convinced. What do you think some Chinese villagers have to do with the baseline reality of dinosaur fossils? They doctor up REAL fossils to look more interesting for profit…that is what is alleged there. Real fossils. Mark himself has said he doesn’t question the reality of the fossils, in general. Do not let some random, unrelated frauds make you question all fossils. The Chinese case was just pure greed. Not something that should make you question fossils themselves.

      This is what is so insidious about Dubay. His points are totally irrelevant to the existence of fossils, but his presentation is titled “Dinosaurs never existed”. Garbage. You yourself just spoke to Flat Earth being wrong, and yet your first section feeds right into what this Dubay (major Flat Earther) is saying about dinosaurs. His being a leader in FE should tell you what to think of him in general. This guy has bad intentions.

      The problem with supporting this “well SOMETHING is wrong with dinosaurs, I don’t believe your photo” logic is that it makes people willing to believe literally anything. Which they will. The correct thing to question here is whether there are significant conclusions that we can draw from the fossil record. You might still have “something off” related to dinosaurs, just not this ridiculousness about how they never existed even though I could show you ten thousand fossils and the people who dug them up.

      PS-Am a little confused why you argue against the term Dino hoax, because I don’t believe that I ever used this term.

      Like

      1. Look, Gaia, I appreciate your reply but am confused by your logic on the first part (dinosaurs). You didn’t say anything about why or how this photo could be fraudulent, just that you don’t believe it.

        Exactly, because I asked you first to think about these things. Wonder about them. Why would not believe this fauxteau is real?

        There are thousands of other photographs and first-hand accounts.

        “There are thousands of other photos of space walking astronots”…

        *or fill in War as a Hoax, the Nuke Hoax, or any other big narrative where this generic Pavlov reaction is visible.

        If we’re just allowed to wave those all away, then you’ll definitely never be convinced. You’d be choosing to not let yourself be convinced.

        “Allowed” even? Under whose rule?

        What do you think some Chinese villagers have to do with the baseline reality of dinosaur fossils?

        Why do you ask me this question, when the smartest thing to do is asking yourself that.

        They doctor up REAL fossils to look more interesting for profit…that is what is alleged there. Real fossils. Mark himself has said he doesn’t question the reality of the fossils, in general. Do not let some random, unrelated frauds make you question all fossils. The Chinese case was just pure greed. Not something that should make you question fossils themselves.

        Ok, so the Chinese case (you really think there is just 1 confirmed case of Mongolian dino fakery??) has nothing to do with what others could do in remote places? What defines that line you now drew in the sand?

        This is what is so insidious about Dubay. His points are totally irrelevant to the existence of fossils, but his presentation is titled “Dinosaurs never existed”. Garbage. You yourself just spoke to Flat Earth being wrong, and yet your first section feeds right into what this Dubay (major Flat Earther) is saying about dinosaurs. His being a leader in FE should tell you what to think of him in general. This guy has bad intentions.

        I don’t believe in DBA, but others do, so that is relevant. Dubay indeed is a shady character and his use of the term “dino hoax” is exactly the thing to avoid. I have much more on this. But first things first.

        The problem with supporting this “well SOMETHING is wrong with dinosaurs, I don’t believe your photo” logic is that it makes people willing to believe literally anything. Which they will. The correct thing to question here is whether there are significant conclusions that we can draw from the fossil record. You might still have “something off” related to dinosaurs, just not this ridiculousness about how they never existed even though I could show you ten thousand fossils and the people who dug them up.

        PS-Am a little confused why you argue against the term Dino hoax, because I don’t believe that I ever used this term.

        After reading all your post you still haven’t given the photo you posted any thought. Zero. Why? What is so hard about thinking about one photo? Isn’t that why you are here?

        Where is the photo even coming from? Where is this? Which genus is this supposed to be? Which formation, age, basin?

        I share links and photos and I explain their contents. Why don’t you do that? With just one photo? Just heaps of armwaiving (“there are many other photos” = irrelevant to this one) to show grandeur (“I am convinced of my beliefs and do not want to question them”) where there is none (cf. Nuke Hoax, Space Travel Hoax, History Hoax, War as a Hoax, etc.).

        PS: You do know about the blatant historical fakery examples of Stonehenge, Voynich manuscript, Bloomberg tablets, Nebra sky disk, Tut’s Mask, Nefetiti’s Bust, “Pompeii and Herculaneum”, and probably the whole “Roman”, “Greek” and “Egytian periods”, the list goes on…?

        Like

        1. Given it thought? YOU would need to tell me exactly what is amiss with this photograph. You have vaguely said something is amiss about it, without ever going into real detail. This is an absurd approach and I find this response to be a ridiculous deflection.

          Like

          1. An absurd approach indeed; you come with something and expect others to make you see your own mistakes. Even a simple question, wondering about your “own” photo you cannot answer.

            How can you ever claim to know the truth about “dinosaurs”, Fauxlex?

            You are not even interested in your own dumped photos.

            Enjoy swimming around in your fallacies, 2020 will be a better year for you!

            Like

    2. More specifically, you questioned that the conditions could arise to result in these fossil finds. That is a huge statement and one that would require a ton of support, and I would be curious to hear a lot more from you on that. Weirdly, your deeper points support oil, round Earth but you question the conditions for fossilization? I am confused/concerned about that. And especially that you seem to make so much sense on your deeper points, but not much in your first, which was the whole topic of debate.

      Like

      1. More specifically, you questioned that the conditions could arise to result in these fossil finds. That is a huge statement and one that would require a ton of support,

        Why do you make strawmen of what people say? Is that so it is easier to attack a oint, because you cannot handle reality?

        I asked you to think about the fauxteau you yourself posted. Is that so strange? Why not start from the beginning; you claim this Disney Dino is supposed to be a real fossil find, if I am not mistaken.

        Why?? What convinces you so much in this photo, with this hadrosaurid, with this geology, etc.

        First question; what kind of sediment you think this “dino” is found in? And what can that tell you about the depositional environment at that time?

        and I would be curious to hear a lot more from you on that. Weirdly, your deeper points support oil, round Earth

        Why are you using terms I didn’t even mention?

        “Round Earth” doesn’t mean anything. Flat Earth is also round. Round refers to a 2D shape (circle), while the reality is 3D (sphere).

        but you question the conditions for fossilization?

        Where, when? We are still talking about this single photo you posted?

        I am confused/concerned about that. And especially that you seem to make so much sense on your deeper points, but not much in your first, which was the whole topic of debate.

        My first point “does not make sense” because it topples your beliefs or because my reasoning is flawed? The first is an opinion which only you can change and the second requires support (especially if you call this a “debate”, have you ever participated in debates?)

        Like

        1. Strawmen? I’m asking you to support your argument! What a crock. You said the conditions couldn’t exist for that fossil. I ask you to explain and apparently I’m arguing with a straw man. Good lord.

          Another. Ridiculous. Deflection. You keep asking ME about the fossilization, but YOU are the one that said such conditions could not exist. I’m asking you to support that statement, not deflect the question back on me because you don’t want to answer.

          And I’m getting CRAZY bad vibes from you. Calling it a “fauxto”. Come on. What a joke. Clearly you’re just trying to further muddy these already incredibly muddy waters. I freaking give up. You people keep responding with the wildest and most outlandish and unsupported theory, yet you are trying to make it so that I’m the one trying to explain myself. Gee, how about the person with the outlandish and unsupported theory actually tries supporting themselves? You know, with actual logic? That is where these arguments always die, with the person making the wild claim either deflecting or trying to make me look bad. Go ahead, I don’t care and I’m tired of this nonsense. If any of you had a good point, you’d have said it by now.

          Like

          1. Triggered
            Pavlov
            NPC = Non-Processing Capacity

            Ladies and gentlemen, we thought they were extinct in realms of truth seeking, but no, evidently they still exist.

            You are so full of air, you should work for NASA.

            Like

          2. Actually Gaia, I’ve gone 100 comments deep on this subject, and encountered nothing but unsupported, outlandish claims and people declaring victory after making said claims. You’re so ridiculous that I really am done. I don’t care about winning the internet over, I care about the truth. But you go ahead and keep making flashy comments. I’m sure you think it’s playing very well.

            All I asked you was to support your claims. You started declaring victory and deflecting at that very point. Also, I’m fairly certain that you have an agenda here, although I cannot dream what exactly that agenda is. And I don’t really care to.

            Like

          3. I am very open about my agenda and happy to share it, Agenda 2020.

            What does Agenda 2020 involve?

            1 – You; this is YOUR Future. OUR Future. We need to be prepared
            2 – we cannot know The Future, but we can damn well extend the trends we studied of today and the past
            3 – this means work. Work on yourself!

            Lessons from the past
            1 – Agenda 2020 podcast teaser – lessons from the past – Geris
            2 – Agenda 2020 podcast teaser – lessons from the past – Rollo
            3 – applying all the lessons we have learned as a community over the years
            4 – everybody is an SME; a Subject Matter Expert, or at least Enthusiast
            5 – that means everybody knows enough about “them”
            6 – now it is time to apply those learnings to ourselves; start with yourself; your own genealogy; who you are and where you come from; exactly that what the Clownworld tries to eradicate
            7 – not knowing that and knowing a lot about “the Rothschilds” or “the Kardashians” [no conspies, the higher ground you may imagine is only in your head] makes you a self-evident moron
            8 – they know and care for their families, we should do that too, not because of “them”, but because it is the natural tribal shamanistic way of life

            Much more here

            Like

          4. I will include you in the How Transhuman Are We? list. You score high (which is a bad sign).

            How Transhuman Are We? is a central question in Agenda 2020; a self-motivating survival guide for a grimmer Future. There seems to be a common misconception that there is “A Transhumanist Age on the rise/coming/ahead”. This is wrong; we already live in the Transhumanist Age. Our role in this age is to first identify our “transhuman footprint” and then act upon that knowledge to reduce it.

            “It does not matter what is true, what matters is what is perceived to be true”

            By 2030 the world will not be as forgiving to less-Transhumans as in 2020…

            We will talk about that phenomenon in detail on the 29th. Stay tuned, you may become famous!

            Like

        2. You haven’t toppled my beliefs, you have made outlandish claims and failed to support them. You also tried to deflect this failure as my failure, which is impressively twisted. YOU are impressively twisted, Gaia.

          Like

          1. you have made outlandish claims and failed to support them.

            That is exactly what you did; you claim this is a real dino, remember. I question that.

            The only thing I asked was too hard for you :THINK. Look at your own photo.

            But even that is too much work, you expect being spoonfed. How did you even end up here with such attitude?

            Like

          2. That is not exactly what I did. I SUPPORTED mine. You raised a random doubt and then have been dodging me to actually explain your doubt ever since.

            Like

          3. Huh, which “support”?

            You have not even revealed where this find was supposed to be, let alone shared any publications.

            Then you haven’t even thought about this find, what lithology is it? Do you have any interest or knowledge about geology and paleontology? Or is this just the brainless parroting I tried to address; a conspie meme?

            Like

          4. THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FOSSILS PULLED OUT OF THE GROUND AND THOSE WHO DUG THEM UP. THAT IS A MOUNTAIN OF SUPPORT WHICH YOU ARE TRYING TO TWIST THROUGH VAGUE, UNSPECIFIED DOUBTS SURROUNDING ONE PHOTO.

            Like

          5. But dear Fauxlex, how can “10,000 other datapoints” (you see this is a wild claim with no support in itself?) ever be an argument for or against this specific case.

            It wouldn’t be so painful if it would be someone’s else’s photo, but you came with it.

            You claim this is real, if I get you right. You have given 0 support or even thought. Why should I share mine?

            Do you know what exchanging thoughts intrinsically means?

            Like

          6. We DO have 10,000 data points, which you so insidiously ignore, while you try to make an irrelevant point about a specific photo. Which you are ALSO actually dodging me about, as you won’t answer what exactly is wrong with the depositional environment of that fossil. That, you won’t say. Claim, broadly, something is off but deflect, deflect, deflect from there. It’s REALLY easy to think you’re right when you’re willing to wave away all the evidence (which is substantial and irrefutable). This is classic bad source thinking. You, Gaia, are a bad source. The naked attempt you’ve made here to subvert attention and use it to point to your own agenda…it sickens me. You sicken me. You should be ashamed of yourself.

            Like

          7. You called it a wild claim that there are 10,000 data points supporting fossils. You are right, it is probably WAY more than that. The way you so conveniently ignore any evidence that goes against your point…THAT is really great stuff. If it’s evidence, claim it can all be disregarded. If it’s an unsubstantiated doubt that supports YOUR wild claim? Well then I’m just a zombie with his eyes closed if I don’t believe it. Amazing, this way you operate. Truly remarkable.

            Like

          8. One simple question about one photo you came up with.

            Do you spam photos of unknown origin you don’t even want to think 10 minutes about often? In your neighborhood too? Through the mailbox, spamming photos of things you don’t even want to talk about, consider, reflect upon, analyze, nothing.

            Cool life bro!

            You come across as an empty hull; NPC, a Transhuman.

            Like

          9. YOU are the one not thinking about the photo. Again, you claim your own failure as my failure. YOU pointed out that this photo cannot be trusted, but as I ask you again and again what is wrong about the depositional environment you just ignore and deflect and make it seem like really I’m the one not answering things.

            You are clearly trained in the art of deception, Gaia, and I really could not care less at this point about your ridiculous deflections. Have fun with your blog! You have shown your true colors here with me, and I will not consider you anything but a joke from here. You are either intentionally polluting minds, or you’re just off the deep end. Either way, I have no respect for your thoughts on this matter.

            Keep making flashy comments though and keep declaring victory, I am sure you are super excited to blog about this conversation.

            Like

          10. Funny because I’ve asked you about a dozen times to explain your doubts of that fossil in the photograph, and all you do is dance around the question.

            Like

          11. You really don’t care about what you say, do you? Rhetorical question.

            Everybody can read along here, do you think they are so stupid to miss what you do? Not even a location of the photo, and you wanted to start about 10,000 other examples?

            If you don’t even want to start with Example 1, that you yourself brought in, how can anyone take you seriously about the other examples you fallaciously use as an argument for this photo and supposed dino.

            You have shown not to know anything about geology or paleontology and demands my thoughts while you yourself haven’t even started with them?

            Who do you think you are? Lol.

            Like

          12. Yes, my fecal-brained adversary, I pulled a random picture off the web. You questioned it, and then you have since run far away from actually explaining your doubts about it. You were sure to point to your site though! Several times! But actually explaining yourself? Not important, and you know it. You know that you could convince people their ass was their elbow and you don’t actually have to make a case for it.

            Do I really need to pull up every first hand witness for you to tell me they can be ignored? My point is that you find first hand evidence as something to ignore. You can ignore whatever evidence you want, and me, the guy NOT making the wild claim, making a plea that these fossils are really, really real is lambasted like my case is the wild one? Hilarious!

            It’s funny. It really is. You’re a joke, like I said. I find these comments funny. You’re hilarious, the way you’re twisting everything beyond all comprehension. That’s your whole game, no?

            Like

          13. It is getting tedious.

            Yes, my fecal-brained adversary, I pulled a random picture off the web.

            Do I really need to pull up every first hand witness for you to tell me they can be ignored?

            The list of fallacies is just unbearable, but:
            1 – you call a random pic off the web first hand witness evidence? Then there is something seriously wrong with you or your understanding of language or both.
            2 – we were talking about this single particular photo, why is it so hard for you to stick to the topic at hand? Big hands, apparently.

            My point is that you find first hand evidence as something to ignore.

            Hahaha, everybody can see in my first post before your raging comments, is that I have been a first hand witness of fossils ascribed to dinosaurs. So what do you mean “ignore”? Have you seen dinosaur fossils in the field? If so, why don’t you use those examples instead of “a random pic off the web”?

            And if not, why don’t you start doing that first? You know, first hand witness accounts?

            You can ignore whatever evidence you want, and me, the guy NOT making the wild claim,

            I beg you a pardon? You make the claim that something on a “randomly snapped off the web pic” is real. That is a wild claim. Period.

            On top of that the image displays a gigantic monster that does not exist today. Found, and that point you keep avoiding, completely articulated in situ as if it were left two weeks ago.

            Don’t you think gigantic monsters deserve scrutiny by themselves?

            making a plea that these fossils are really, really real is lambasted like my case is the wild one? Hilarious!

            With ANY image you share that you don’t know the origin of, yes, by definition.

            It’s funny. It really is. You’re a joke, like I said. I find these comments funny. You’re hilarious, the way you’re twisting everything beyond all comprehension. That’s your whole game, no?

            I am glad you enjoy it. Me too. What misses is your learning, but maybe one day it will come, I am an optimist.

            Like

          14. Again, the photo is what YOU said was fake. I have asked you an insane number of times to tell me what you think is wrong with it. You never respond.

            Instead, you are very good at scrambling what really matters. Ah yes, get me to admit that I don’t know the person in the photo personally. A beautiful opening to try to make a bunch of wild and irrelevant statements. Well done. Lest we forget, I also uploaded a picture of a fossil that I personally found. Or that I could pull thousands upon thousands of first hand photos and witnesses to fossil finds. You will probably say that I should, but this is the point where I get so freaking fed up with your obvious misdirection that I’d much rather tell you to shove it. Fossils existing, even ones that we would consider dinosaurs, is the one thing that you don’t want to debate. Anything but that. An explanation for the fossil samples. Because you don’t have one. There are cabinets upon cabinets full of fossils found literally all over the globe. Probably MILLIONS of fossils. That’s what you don’t want people thinking about.

            You just want to make sure that they’re so confused by all your diversions and deflections that they’ll have no idea what to think. THAT’S all you really care about. And it makes me sick. Your efforts at deception are so naked that I really cannot reconcile you being a true believer. You are definitely, however, a true deceiver.

            Like

          15. Scrutiny is good, but what you’re hawking is not scrutiny, it is denial. Would you consider it a reasonable theory that ALL art isn’t real just because there have been proven forgeries? “Art doesn’t exist! Just look at the fakes!!! That statue? I mean how do we know it’s REALLY there? Just because you have a picture of it?” Hahaha. Does this sound like a theory that has a strong grasp on reality? You are well and truly a clown. The moon landing was a very small number of highly controlled situations. Fossils are…constantly being found all over the world by totally random people!

            This theory of yours is a joke. Don’t confuse what you’re selling with healthy skepticism. It could not be farther from that, and is harmful in its very existence as a means of poisoning minds.

            Like

          16. Fossils existing, even ones that we would consider dinosaurs, is the one thing that you don’t want to debate.

            Huh? That is the whole topic I try to discuss here. You seem to be stuck in beliefs, like the others have tried to make clear to you. Without avail and the same ad hominems.

            I don’t know if you drink, but if so, do yourself a favor and detox from that, at least for a good while. It awakens you, alcohol numbs you and your thinking.

            Like

          17. There are cabinets upon cabinets full of fossils found literally all over the globe. Probably MILLIONS of fossils. That’s what you don’t want people thinking about.

            Really? That is funny. How much do you actually know about me? Don’t answer, you’ll only make it worse.

            You just want to make sure that they’re so confused by all your diversions and deflections that they’ll have no idea what to think. THAT’S all you really care about. And it makes me sick. Your efforts at deception are so naked that I really cannot reconcile you being a true believer. You are definitely, however, a true deceiver.

            Funny again. Because my stance is logic and reason. That is how I get to the truth of things. You don’t seem to have any standards. At all. A “random ic off the web” serves as “first hand witness” in your programmed brain. Deprogram from that, it clearly hurts you.

            If you are out of ideas for improvement for the exciting new year, you can always consult Agenda 2020. It is updated regularly.

            Like

          18. Hey, if you’re done pushing your agenda could you answer any of those questions that I’ve asked you about a hundred times? What issue do you have with the depositional environment in that photograph? How do you explain the many thousands of fossil samples that exist worldwide?

            Like

          19. Scrutiny is good, but what you’re hawking is not scrutiny, it is denial.

            Denial of what? Where?

            I asked you to take a look at your own random pic and actually think about it. Why are you completely unable and keep twisting like an eel in a bucket of slime?

            Why do you think that skeleton you posted is real (a wild claim; we talk about giant monsters and “unique” skeletons)….

            Would you consider it a reasonable theory that ALL art isn’t real just because there have been proven forgeries? “Art doesn’t exist! Just look at the fakes!!! That statue? I mean how do we know it’s REALLY there? Just because you have a picture of it?” Hahaha. Does this sound like a theory that has a strong grasp on reality?

            No it doesn’t and thank you for pointing this out, because that is exactly what I have against these “Dino Hoax” proponents.

            You are well and truly a clown. The moon landing was a very small number of highly controlled situations. Fossils are…constantly being found all over the world by totally random people!

            I am quite certain I have observed more micro- and macrofossils than you. So who are you trying to convince with this generic statement?

            This theory of yours is a joke.

            Which theory? I haven’t even outlined a hypothesis, how can you even speak of theory?

            Do you have any clue about the philosophy of science (= truth seeking)?
            Rhetorical question number 911, don’t answer, you do that enough.

            Like

          20. Listen, if you’re not even willing to admit that you started all of this by calling into question the photograph, and then made further comment which questioned the reality of these fossils, then this is all pointless. If you haven’t stated your own beliefs on this subject this deep into it, then you ARE definitely just trying to muddy the waters.

            The only comment you specifically made was about the Chinese frauds. Remember, this stuff only matters in the Dubay-centered belief that this stuff is all fake. Why else would it matter? Fraudulent art doesn’t mean art isn’t real. So the only reason you’d hawk such things as meaningful is if you were playing to the crowd of those who think it’s reasonable. You called into question a random old photo of a guy with a dinosaur being pulled from the ground. You are CLEARLY making some claims there, whether through implication or not. People like you thrive on implications such as these. You’ll say, oh, NO, I don’t personally believe exactly that dinosaurs were fake. Oh, I never SAID exactly that. No, of course you didn’t. Now for the love of God, get lost.

            Like

          21. Why do you think the dinosaur fossil presented in that photo is real? Not any other fossil, this hadrosaurid. And what are your criteria?

            Basic geologic terms is enough, I don’t expect an MSc. from you.

            Like

          22. Crickets, as expected.

            Presents a photo, just grabbed from somewhere, no idea what it is, and claims it is real. In this day and age, amazing!

            The likely lithology of this formation is probably already too hard.

            Like

          23. Fauxlex, I’m still indifferent on the subject of dinosaurs and will likely remain so, but I respect your position and just wanted to let you know that I, too, thought that photo looked fake when you first posted it. Gaia, as always, has convinced me of nothing. (From what I can tell though, her only real goal is to convince herself of her superiority to anyone she disagrees with…and, to be fair, she seems to be doing a great job.) I’m grateful for the reminder that people in our club are all too likely to see conspiracy where it doesn’t exist. But dude, that photo looks like something from a cheesy movie set. You’d have to already be convinced of the reality of dinosaurs to find that photo persuasive.

            Like

          24. Hey Scott, to be clear, I really wasn’t posting that photo as some kind of slam dunk. It wasn’t supposed to even be any specific point unto itself. The idea was more that these fossils are ubiquitous. Evidence is extremely widespread. In any case, I have actually traced that photograph to its source and have reached out to the scientist pictured. The point is that I could find a thousand others. Unless their argument addresses how these could ALL be fake, then this person is trying to trick you with a false argument. They’re trying to convince you that since art is sometimes forged, all art is fraudulent. “Dinosaurs” are a hugely broad class of creatures spanning tens of millions of years. These people are feeding the public bad arguments as a matter of course. It is poison, and these people spreading it should not go unchecked.

            This hyper focus on the one photograph really, obviously detracts from the point. That is exactly why Gaia is doing this. My point is actually not about that one photograph at all, it is that THOUSANDS such ones exist. Thousands and thousands of first hand sources and fossil samples. You have to believe these things are all a vast conspiracy to think any of these arguments hold water. You never hear from these fossil deniers any explanation for the ubiquitous nature of fossil samples. That part is always ignored. If they make enough weird and irrelevant points, then by the end they can pretty much ignore the fossil samples because they’ve already scrambled it all adequately.

            Both TimR and Gaia have also used the line of argument where I am dumped on for not treating this like their argument is equal to mine. Like such mountains of evidence need not be explained and that they are apparently of no value to my side of the debate. That’s insanity. The implied method is always that these first hand witnesses are somehow lying, and the samples are fake. It’s deception, pure and simple. You can’t just say that the witnesses don’t matter. But that’s what they do, usually by some vague implication that it could be all fake.

            I really don’t care whether I’m convincing you or anyone anymore, but I will not stand for these ridiculous debates where all anyone else points to are irrelevant details. It’s smoke and mirrors to detract away from the heart of the truth. Fossils are not fraudulent, broadly speaking. Gaia is especially bad, and especially insidious, and isn’t even hiding their agenda. I’m really disappointed that the vast majority of commenters here seem to mostly be interested in controlling a certain narrative. You, Scott, seem to be one of the exceptions.

            I will let you know if I hear back from the scientist in the photo. It’s a fair point, generally speaking, that my posting a random internet photo isn’t good practice. However, this doesn’t actually relate to the point. It’s not a counter-argument, as much as it is very valuable to someone who is trying to find any crack to sneak past and undermine me. Gaia is clearly well trained at such undercutting. Gaia is the lowest of the low. Master level deception and misinformation techniques.

            Like

          25. Dinosaurs exist. As soon as you define them they exist.

            But real fossils exist too assigned to dinosaurs. I am not jumping on some Dino Hoax train, which you seem to have jumped. I use my observational skills. And that is what it is about, not about an online “debate” which you allege are my motives. That is in your head.

            Like

          26. The awake reader notices the same devoidness of information our passive-aggressive gender bender Scott does.

            Do you and Fauxlex work in tandem?

            Just one photo is already too much. Good start of the year!

            Like

          27. Fauxlex, I really do appreciate the points your making. I could have very easily jumped on the dino hoax bandwagon, but thanks to this thread, I’ll put more thought and research into it before coming to any sort of conclusion.

            Gaia–“gender-bender?” I guess that’s a reference to my using female pronouns in reference to you? Frankly, I assume most people who post to sites like this, including you, are white guys middle-aged and up, but if your handle refers to a goddess and your avatar is a cross-legged chick and you have an effete writing style, I’ll call you “she” for the sake of convenience unless you explicitly state you’re male, because who cares.

            Liked by 1 person

  8. PS: my use of fauxteau is a pun when I saw your name it fit perfectly with “feauteau” that GeenStijl came up with ages ago.

    Newspeak is not necessarily bad; we are allowed to make our own words.

    Like

      1. That may be the case; the beauty of logic is that that doesn’t mean anything.

        “You are fat!”
        “You are fat!”

        None of the two became less fat with this tu quoque stalemate.

        You have an apparent inability to change your beliefs and replace them with reason. Even the first step; thinking, you failed. Ouch.

        Like

          1. This is not a debate (as you lack even the basic skills for that). So no “win”.

            We are trying to find out the truth about animals that lived millions of years ago. Don’t you think that question (and more intriguing the possible answers) supersedes your fallacy baby babble a bit?

            Like

    1. You told me to LOOK at my own photo and when I asked you to explain what you mean you started screaming straw man and I’m a NASA zombie and bla, bla, bla. Shut up already. You’re a joke.

      Like

  9. Back to the dinosaurs.

    Fauxlex, how much credibility do you give this media story?

    Catch of the day: Edmonton man finds dinosaur fossil in river valley while fishing

    Discovery led to a fossil finding tour with Royal Tyrrell Museum staff
    Jordan Omstead · CBC News · Posted: Sep 01, 2019 7:48 PM MT | Last Updated: September 1, 2019

    Myles Curry went into the river valley to catch fish and he came out with a foot-long dinosaur bone.

    Curry was hiking out of a secluded fishing spot along the North Saskatchewan River upstream from Devon, southwest of Edmonton, on Aug. 17.

    As he clambered over a pair of large rocks, he looked down and saw an unusual object with a curved shape fully uncovered on the ground.

    “I just had this voice in my head and I was like, you should go back and check that out,” he said.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDU9YYPU0Acm2oa?format=jpg&name=900×900

    What a catch! But wait, there is a catch.

    Curry figured it was a petrified wood branch, a notably large piece to add to his collection. He picked up what looked like two smaller chunks of the branch, rinsed them off in the river and tucked them into his pack.

    “It was a good find, but it didn’t seem like anything totally remarkable,” he said. “It just wasn’t even in my frame of reference of potentially being a dinosaur.”

    Curry invited his neighbour, a fellow nature enthusiast, to take a look when he got back to Edmonton. But his neighbour quickly recognized the shape and texture as a likely dinosaur bone.

    I really wanted to believe them. It still just seemed like such an outrageous thing,” he said.

    The shape of the object looks indeed like petrified wood, but the structure looks bony. But the clue is in the bolded part. How easy it is to fool someone with a bit of convincing.

    Curry sent out an email to several Alberta museums with a description and pictures, hoping to verify his neighbour’s theory.

    Less than a day later, the curator of dinosaurs at the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller responded and confirmed it was a bone.

    Really?? So we don’t need physical analysis anymore. We can just use images and “confirm” it is a bone (this is not a scientific statement, this is media talk)?

    No, that is not how the real world works.

    It looked like a hadrosaur, he wrote, a duck-billed dinosaur that roamed throughout western North America millions of years ago.

    Really, that you can see from one bone through a couple of images via email? Eh no, that is not how it works.

    Any fossil that is found is first identified in a general class and later described in more detail to a genus level if there is enough fossil material. That description is published in a reviewed journal and the name is submitted to the ICZN. Only then anything can be said about this “dinosaur bone”.

    That process takes many years, not from August 17 to 18. And media story ready by Sep 1. Eh no.

    Curry has a reputation among friends and family for making unexpected nature finds, he said, but nothing as unexpected as a dinosaur fossil.

    It’s unreal. It goes to show that anything can really show up,” he said.

    Really? A floating castle, a pair of Sudanese slippers, or an isolated dinosaur bone. This does not even sound like a fisherman.

    Private museum expedition
    But the best part is, Curry says, the museum asked him to escort two staff back to the spot to look for more fossils.

    When he returned on Friday with the crew, mud from the eroding cliffs on the river’s edge covered the ground. If he hadn’t decided to pick up the fossil the first time around, Curry figures it would have been lost in the next rainstorm.

    Curry and the museum staff spent several hours searching the area.

    “They were so great. They were indulging all my questions,” he said. “Not to toot my own horn here but I found a couple fossils myself.”

    Curry was awestruck by how quickly the museum staff could identify what they found, right down to the species and the part of the body. He says the museum staff suspect a river may have once met the North Saskatchewan at the site, leading to a build up of fossils. As heavy rain eroded the river banks, fossils like the one Curry found were being unearthed for the first time.

    Eh, wait. If the fossils would come from a fossil bed, how come the three bone fragments were found together? That makes no geologic sense. Especially not if this find of three fitting fragments was again deposited by a river in modern times.

    It was surreal [third time!] to have a paleontologist explain the history behind the fossils he was holding in his hands, Curry said.

    Indeed. This is a Jurassic Park movie script, not a real scientific find.

    “It really just shows how lucky we are here in Alberta. Lots of places you don’t have the ability to tell these cool stories about the geology around us and there were these amazing creatures walking around literally where we were tens of millions of years ago,” he said.

    Mark “The buildings came down due to structural failure, because the heat of the fires was just too intense” Walsh anyone?

    Social media buzz
    The museum doesn’t have any immediate plans to return to the spot [why not??], Curry said, but staff asked him to look out for any dinosaur fossils on future fishing trips [that does not make any sense ; paleontologists want to find, locate and describe the finds themselves]. He still has the fossils, and is filing a claim with the province to become the legal owner.

    Curry posted his story on Twitter, where it’s racked up thousands of likes. Through the post, he connected with an elementary school teacher about bringing the fossils for a show-and-tell style presentation to the fourth graders.

    “I think it’d be a great way to educate people on the amazingness of our river valley,” he said of the fossils.

    That is true, if this is a real fossil, really found by someone named Myles Curry.

    It sounds more like some adventure comic.

    “We have a lot of adventure and a lot of history out there, so if I can keep them and share that story, I’d love to, but if [the museum] needs them for something else, I’m happy to give them up.”

    Curry, who spends much of his free-time fishing and hiking, said the fossil saga [strange wording for just a find] redoubled his support to establish protected provincial parks in the Woodbend-Big Island area and Bighorn country.

    And that was this whole invented story all about of course.

    “We need to protect it and make it more accessible,” he said.

    Who is this psycho?

    More accessible and protection (less access) are direct opposites.

    Of course the whole plot is to get an even bigger area safeguarded from onlookers who try their luck hiking and hadrohunting….

    Like

    1. For the love of all that is holy Gaia, do you ever just shut the hell up???

      You don’t win by inundating your opponent with so much blather that they just walk away and leave you to perform on a stage for yourself. Everyone in the audience already long gone. Shut the hell up. I don’t feel like participating in what I have already pointed out is your naked attempt to muddy the waters of fossils. Go ahead and write about it in your blog or whatever. I won’t get in your way. You can just pretend what you think my response would be and keep on with your drivel. I’m not wasting another moment on you.

      Like

      1. For the love of all that is holy Gaia, do you ever just shut the hell up???

        Didn’t you join a truth seeking blog? By your own free choice? Just like me?

        You don’t win by inundating your opponent with so much blather that they just walk away and leave you to perform on a stage for yourself.

        That is the whole thing; this idea is only in your head. I am trying to get closer to the truth by stripping away falsehoods. I am quite sure the blog owners have the same view. So if I wanted a stage for myself it would not be the best platform, right?

        Everyone in the audience already long gone. Shut the hell up. I don’t feel like participating in what I have already pointed out is your naked attempt to muddy the waters of fossils. Go ahead and write about it in your blog or whatever. I won’t get in your way. You can just pretend what you think my response would be and keep on with your drivel. I’m not wasting another moment on you.

        The latter is self evidently untrue, seeing your next reaction, but far beside the point. I wonder how you established this statement in the festive times we live in…

        “Everyone in the audience already long gone.”

        Mark has more subscribers than Fakeologist.com, which in this still small but potentially huge market of healthy (?) skeptic (?) logical (?) and critical (?) thinkers, is a substantial feat. So I wonder how you know this.

        Back to the dinos again, I thought that was your passion, right?

        Your own words:

        In fact, it’s extremely dangerous to accept any alternative theory as being valuable, when it goes against something you KNOW is real.

        Very well said!

        If this guy believes that all dinosaur fossils are fraudulent, then yes, I dismiss him out of hand with pride.

        And again! Me too, as I have seen fossils ascribed to dinosaurs. More on that later. First let’s look at your pic.

        You see? We are getting somewhere. Common ground. Let’s look at what is below that, shall we?

        Your own image, my own words:

        Sorry to disappoint you Fauxlex, but I don’t believe for a second that this articulated skeleton of what looks like a hadrosaur (I am not a dino expert), the duck-billed one, is a real fossilized skeleton found like this in situ.

        I don’t want you to believe me, I want you to look at the geology and imagine how this possibly could work. I will explain much more after your reaction, but you do your own thinking first please.

        What is the source even of this photo? Where is this and which genus is this supposed to be? There is no context to the photo, which is not necessary to show its fakeness, but that is crucial for yourself to understand what is going on. Or not, rather.

        ….

        More about this after your reaction Fauxlex. I am curious about your views on this hypothetical hadrosaur and why you believe this particular example is possibly real.

        The question about thinking for yourself appeared to be to a blind wall, but to be fair, you did give a reaction.

        The grabbed from the net image you came with.

        Observations
        1. this ‘hadrosaurid’ is found in situ, which means in the place and position it died; it did not get transported by flow of water, air or ice.
        2. the grey sediments must have been deposited under subaqueous conditions; under water. Or this is an ash fall deposit. See below.
        Terrestial sediments are stained red because of hematite, ‘rust’ in layman terms
        3. as far as I can tell from the photo, which seems to be genuine, not some photoshopped guy in or so, the sediments show variance in grain size.
        4. the hadrosaurid is completely articulated and for a non-paleontologist looks like almost intact.

        Thoughts
        1. if this part of the formation this huge hadrosaurid was found in was deposited under water, with movement of sediment (variance in grain size), probably in deltaic, lacustrine or shallow marine environments with unknown climatic conditions, but most probably seasonal rains, then….

        A – any animal would break up in various parts and not be found like this, intact, in situ

        if this is an ashfall bed,

        B – where the dino was trapped in a volcanic event, then where is all the other flora and fauna around? It is like NASA ; you cannot NOT capture starlight on your photos…

        Ash fall and volcanic lake sediments can indeed produce in situ preservation, with the Messel Grube in Germany as prime example, with beautiful preservation in volcanic lake sediments. But these conditions are highly exceptional.

        Horse from Messel Pit, about 40 million years old (Mid Eocene).

        How many bodies in a city like New York or Bogotá do you think are found articulated and preserved? And that is today.

        Fossilization is a rare process and it cannot be selectively rare. That is how it is used; playing with our knowledge that fossils are real. But that does not make every narrated fossil and its story real.

        That is the line to explore, not an imagined “Dino Hoax”. Fossil fakery goes way beyond “dinos” and dinosaur fossils, or at least the ones that are defined as such are real.

        That is why there are people here and elsewhere who are so confused about me. I don’t follow the artificial binary Eric Dubay vs Robert Bakker debate or stances. The boundaries run differently, and this almost Irving vs Lipstadt show only underlines that.

        Dubay is a huge FE clown too.

        I go my own way, always and that may scare or surprise people.

        Maybe they learn something, who knows.

        Like

        1. Your main point, which is buried in a whole lot of irrelevant detail, is that “any animal would break up in various parts and not be found like this, intact, in situ”. This is, quite simply, not true. You have no idea what could have caused this creature to be rapidly buried. Your second point is even more ridiculous, saying “where is the other flora and fauna?” like it’d have to be within 2 feet of this particular fossil. Although you had time to gussy it up with some nice sounding science, your gobbledygook surrounding this photo is exactly that. Gobbledygook.

          More specifically, WHY DO YOU THINK ANY OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID MATTERS? You haven’t shown that the fossil is fake, just more that you vaguely refuse to believe it for extremely weak reasons. If you don’t claim this dinosaur fossil is fake and you don’t think the photo is fake THEN WHY DID YOU START THIS ALL BY CALLING IT INTO QUESTION?!?! You intentionally made vague doubts seem relevant to some point against me, and even after you have days and days to try to put together an argument about the fossil photo, you end up basically…NOT thinking the photo is fake? Again just casting vague doubts? Of course. Although you did actually try for once to gussy it up with science. Doesn’t mean that you are still just casting doubts which are irrelevant to the existence of dinosaurs. But you definitely made sure to try to undermine me though!

          You are the most insidious time-wasting troll that I’ve ever seen. You undermine and you detract. Your goal here is to just skew everything. Warp it all into submission. Even the most air tight case can be framed as having cracks. Question my photo, but then analyze the photo and determine that…it’s real? You just have problems with the dirt which boil down to a weak set of questions you can’t answer (How was it buried? Where is other fauna?). You are a waste of time, Gaia.

          Like

          1. I didn’t expect an exchange of thoughts, Fauxlex.

            Your position is “grab something off the internet and let others not convince me it is not real”.

            Then nothing will work. You have your truth established, that won’t change even not by at least relative experts. Why even bother discussing then.

            I wrote my geologic views for others who may find them revealing.

            Like

        2. A site in Spain, I have done fieldwork in this area, but didn’t find any dinosaurs unfortunately. Back then egg fossils were already discovered there.

          This looks way more convincing, how they find the fossils (bones, broken), how the genus was described, not a completely articulated “dino out of the box” like the random pic.

          Galvesaurus herreroi

          During the 1980s, a fossil site known as Cuesta Lonsal, in the Villar del Arzobispo Formation near Galve (Teruel), Spain, was excavated by local amateur fossil hunter José María Herrero after he found the fossilized remains of a sauropod dinosaur. Zaragoza University and the Government of Aragon commissioned members of a scientific research team known as “Aragosaurus” to investigate the site in 1987.

          They determined that the site would be an important one for paleontological research, and after obtaining the necessary permits, they began their own dig there in 1993.

          Between 1993 and 2002, they obtained more than 50 bones associated with a new sauropod species. Also during that time, various team members published scientific reports on the bones they were recovering and on the site itself, though they refrained from publishing a formal name for the new dinosaur due to the fact the fossils were still undergoing preparation. As the bones were prepared and studied, the team transferred them to the small Spanish Paleontological Museum of Galve for display.

          (wiki)

          Such discovery history and sequence in naming fossils also makes sense.

          That is the thing, there is no “dino hoax”, there is a fossil hoax, where certain fossils are faked. And others real. Dinos and non-dinos, the lines run differently.

          That is the line to explore, and imho one of the reasons why Eric “Flat Earth” Dubay misdirects away from that with his “Dino Hoax” bullshit.

          Like

  10. And Fauxlex, you are right about Tim. He is, just like you, a vault of fallacies.

    First, I think there is just a common sense skepticism towards the idea of dinosaurs existing. At least, if one steps back from the familiarity with which we’ve seen them since childhood. The size claims for some of the Brontosaurus style dinos are phenomenal. And then take that size, and put a relatively tiny head at the end of these epic necks. Or the T-Rex with his famous puny arms. The stegosaurus with his cartoony/ comical tail spikes, and again with the pea-sized head.

    Argument from ignorance; I don’t believe something cannot exist, so it doesn’t exist.

    Have fun looking for and at giraffes, chameleons, narwhals, sloths and walking fish.

    Biology is an amazing science. Or are you also in the fake animal camp as Hans Wormhole and Unreal (Fakeologist.com). Please tell me now, then I know I don’t need to waste time on you anymore.

    Maybe. Lots of weird animals out there. But I think it’s enough to warrant closer scrutiny.

    Which you haven’t given. FE-style handwaiving. Clownesque bluff.

    As an aside, I think it could be a tell that kids are naturally fascinated with dinos. As some podcaster pointed out whose name escapes me, she noticed that her favorite topics as a kid, were things she later learned were Fakes and Phonies. Their fascination is in part the sense of unreality that intuitively seeps through the official narrative.

    Children are fascinated with nature. Period. It is the unnatural self programmed parents that don’t enhance that natural curiosity of humans.

    Second, it is at least curious that all the major dino hunters, from the very beginning, are guys that Mathis could write papers about. They’re all born on 8/8/88 and find dinos on 8/11/11 and such. Okay, I just made those dates up, but that’s about the long and short of it. They find 8 dino bones in a cave, or 33 dino eggs, or that SORT of thing. And they’re “of the families,” at least that’s clear with Cope and Marsh and other early guys. So if dinos are real, I guess they just feel the need to be cute about the stories they tell about it? Cope and Marsh had their famous bone wars, that were media soap opera of the late 1800s. Popularizing and selling dinos to the public.

    1 – the pars pro toto fallacy; because fake fossils exist, the whole set of fossils must be fake.
    2 – the DBA – Discredit By Association; found by elites (those had the time and means to travel and do field trips, remember), so fake
    3 – numerology only exists in your head. There are no “masonic numbers”. There are only numbers. And masons.

    Third, and this is a big, big point to me— the THEORY of dinosaurs came prior to any significant dino fossil finds! Literally the few British guys who worked it out, had found among them a big strange tooth (possibly… highly subjective…) and similar ambiguous material. From that they extrapolated the entire dinosaur/ giant reptile concept. They created artist renderings just based on some extremely ambiguous and fragmentary fossil evidence.

    Yeah, I see you are stuck at Dubay “levels”. A FE clown informing you of a science you can do yourself. There are many amateur paleontologists and geologists and many of them have made amazing finds.

    Ichthyosaurs, plesosaurs and pliosaurs are not dinosaurs, but were found long before the first dinosaurs. That is where the concept is based on.

    By the grandfather of Charles Darwin who I must thank for having developed the most solid hypothesis of life on Earth, in past and present. It is just impossible to unsee evolution; it is in everything, even in this very discussion.

    They built that dinosaur restaurant in the Crystal Palace, where high society types ate black tie dinners. (Perhaps by this time they had slightly more fossils, but I don’t think they had much. I would have to reread the history.) It was a public sensation, with cartoonists joking about it and tying it to the politics of the day. The concept amused and fascinated the public.

    Wow, really? People in the 19th century wanting to make profit from great progress in science? You are kidding.

    THEN— over the next few decades, after this extraordinary [empty claim] hypothesis — they were suddenly able to find the most conclusive proof, the most striking, mind-blowing confirmation of these wild ideas. Pulling out stegosauri and brontosauri and T-Rex and all manner of creature from the Montana rocks, and other Western states. Convenientely funded by Rockefeller and Carnegie, who then put them on display in big city museums. Just like that. These supposedly quite rare circumstances, to fossilize a creature and then have it survive over the eons — and we have merely to get a bug to go looking, and suddenly you’re pulling them out of the rocks hand over fist.

    Indeed, and those examples are the ones to look for. Explore. Do your own work. So far it is just a parroted list of Dubay bullshit. I could just have wasted my time on his video.

    I know I am crazy addressing illogical clowns online, but it is so much fun.

    Hey, it raises a few eyebrows, that’s all I’m saying.

    And that is the point; you are not. You are just as stuck in the sand as Fauxlex, though you claim some higher position. It isn’t there.

    big propaganda narratives, such as Evolution. Or, more innocently perhaps, just interest children in science generally.

    And there we have enough. I don’t like the fact we look for 99% like other apes, so it must be fake. Or so. Or “questions”.

    I shouldn’t have done it. But maybe there are sharper commenters who can contribute something useful to the discussion.

    Like

    1. Hey Gaia, your gobbledygook is looking great! Excellent meaningless gibberish you’re spewing here. Well, I guess they do say…practice makes perfect. The depths of your efforts to undermine everything continue to amaze me.

      Like

        1. No thanks, I already went about 50 comments deep with you on the matter, and all you did was duck and dodge and dance around all the critical, relevant topics. I would ask you clear, direct questions a dozen times and you just wouldn’t answer. You are not an honest actor in this. Your motives are not where they should be. Of course NOW you’re gonna come in (being the POS that you are), and claim I’m the one ducking you. That’s just your pathetic game to undermine everything and flood the conversation with nonsense. I’ve got better things to do. I’m sure you will keep on flooding these comments. I don’t care.

          Like

  11. It is also the many egg fragments that must bother the “Dino Deniers”, to use a horrible but in this case appropriate term. There is also no “Holohoax”, that is much more nuanced and mysterious too.

    Guegoolithus is known from over 400 fossil eggshell fragments, but no complete eggs have been found. They are very thin for spheroolithids, ranging from 0.42 to 1.5 mm in thickness. The wide range of eggshell thickness is partially due to erosion on the inner and outer surfaces of the fragments. The size and shape of the complete egg is unknown.

    Like other types of dinosaur eggs, the shell of Guegoolithus is made up of tightly packed crystalline units. The shell is single-layered, but the shell units appear to be have two distinct layers because they exhibit a radiating acicular crystal structure near the base (the inner edge of the eggshell), but form a tabular ultrastructure on the upper third of the eggshell.

    (wiki, Guegoolithus)

    So Fauxlex, your point is right, that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest the existence of some dinosaur genera, but which are based on real fossil bones, eggs, tracks and coprolites and which ones are make-belief, misinterpreted other fossil fauna or complete fakes, that is interesting to find out…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s