Dinosauria: Fact or Fiction?

me as well on the life long fascination with them, though I'd guess that is longer ago than you, things really have come on since the 1960s.

the problem is school teacher are really dim as a rule, they are teaching stuff decades behind scientific thought, it quite easy to think you've been cheated when you find out they have been telling you things 50 yearsbehind.

I find the fact that it is obviously evolving as things come to light to be reassuring, that they are seeking truth, even if what they are saying now isnt accurate, it is more accurate than it was in the 1960s, probably

Most definitely have changed, my schooling coming from the 90's and a lot learnt by myself researching in the library, probably from books written in the 60's and 70's. The majority of changes in the 2000's with all the new discoveries.
Exciting and perplexing at the same time.
However i question authenticity as they find one skeleton with feathers and assume all could have had. Then suddenly they all seem too. Changing how we all view them.

Even though i do question these things, i still enjoy all new discoveries that are made as it leads on to answering those questions though often adding a lot more aswell.
 
One thing that always comes up for me when posed with this question is the the dinosaurs seemed to have escaped the grip of the golden ratio, the the T rex for example, how the hell could those little arms be of any function, it would neither be able to feed itself or wipe it's own bottom.

Maybe it is one of those elusive transitionary species.

T rex was a hopper, a big kangaroo on a low gravity planet. It has semi-cylindrical hip joints, which prevents it from running, though it probably could waddle. A biped needs ball-joint hips to be able to run, to swing the grounded foot inwards, over the center of mass.

The arms of a T rex are very strong for their size, judging by the bone cross sections and joint geometry, but the range of motion is quite limited. They have one major function in my animal locomotion model, to push off from the ground. They come into play in two locomotion scenarios, one when the animal gets up from its resting position, and a second function as an occasional push when the animal oversteers a hop, toppling forward. In both cases, by pushing off the ground the arms are providing a counter moment to the net torque caused by the center of mass being slightly forward of the hip joints.
 
Last edited:
T rex was a hopper, a big kangaroo on a low gravity planet. It has semi-cylindrical hip joints, which prevents it from running, though it probably could waddle. A biped needs ball-joint hips to be able to run, to swing the grounded foot inwards, over the center of mass.

The arms of a T rex are very strong for their size, judging by the bone cross sections and joint geometry, but the range of motion is quite limited. They have one major function in my animal locomotion model, to push off from the ground. They come into play in two locomotion scenarios, one when the animal gets up from its resting position, and a second function as an occasional push when the animal oversteers a hop, toppling forward. In both cases, by pushing off the ground the arms are providing a counter moment to the net torque caused by the center of mass being slightly forward of the hip joints.
the 30 mph running Trex that portrayed in films probebly isnt true, the whole body plan makes more sence if it were to move somewhat more,sedatly than that. there doesnt seem a evolutionary need to move fast, if your prey was slower than you, as seems likely or it was as some times suggested a scavenger rather than a hunter.

they did have air sacks in the bones to lighten them some what, so maybe fast over 20 foot as an ambush predator

not sure about the hopping thing, not seen anything to support that, though you maybe correct, I'm sure it could jump, so hopping is only an advancement on that.

I'm reasonably confident that gravity was much the same back then, give or take a small amount, there was a much high % of oxygen which would perhaps aid moving such big bodies
 
So brachiosaurus has been renamed giraffatitan? Are they slowly beginning to tell us that these animals were giraffes all along? What about the other "dinosaurs" then?
hehe. It seems to have been renamed yes.
I found a picture via wikipedia on giraffatitan which from i sense the authors thinking something like:



Brachiosaurus-brancai_jconway.jpg
"Quick! we need to design huge neck muscles to make it possible to lift that head and long neck.. f**k, the thing is too heavy now, remove everything in the back!"

Giraffatitan - Wikipedia
 
I found some issues with the first post.
Firstly people did have stories about "dinosaurs". Only they didn't call them that.
The Bible mentions behemoths and leviathans. Native Americans had thunderbirds. Others had dragons, gryphons etc.
I believe that large reptile creatures were real until very recently. But I agree that these "finds" are largely fabricated.
Also, one comment made was how "realistic" the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls was in 1947. I do not believe that.
(Maybe someone should start a thread about how all these "Bible-affirming" steles, stones etc. were all only "discovered" in the 19th century and later?)
 
I have the new idea Dinosaurias or Mudfossils could not be fossils but golems. Golems as like animals which are still not living yet but will in future time at a bigger earth (controversal to darwins evolution but not to the idea of dreamtime from the aborigines). Because I think Earth itself is biological the gravitation does not have to be higher at a bigger expanding/growing earth. It´s strange skeletons of Dinosaurias from the past years suddenly have feathers but not in fossils from decades ago. Is there a secret development of new species on earth and we had missinterpreted it ?
 
Dinosours were big because the gravity was much less.
Less gravity is the reason those huge birds could fly.
We have no bird of that size today.
Except for the Ostrich etc that kept the long neck, but minimized its head, maximized its legs and decided to fly no more.
The swan with its long neck still, can barely take off, and its legs struggles to stand up.

To suggest those ancient huge dinosour birds could fly in the current gravity is laughable.
Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence and proof. Gravity is one such fantastic claim.

Current Science: I have 666 picasso paintings in my garage.... honest I do...believe me!!!
 
Had a thought how in a million years the visitors from outer space will look at our skeletons and how they imagine our looks...

Humanus Obesitus.jpg

Maybe after some archeological digging in the ruins of New York they find a buried humanoid skeleton under a huge M which they will call a 'rune', name it a temple (or a tomb) and after many, many months they relate the remains of the Humanus Obesitus to a toilet brush.
 
Personally, although not a fan of all that he has said or done, I do think Kent Hovind might be on to something in regards to dinosaurs. If you're a fan of younger earth and the earth that had previously been enclosed within a hyperbaric O3 creating environment it all falls into place. Dinosaurs grew bigger faster, and could fly with the heavier healthier air and could even survive today in jungles and lighter trafficked areas..


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6f_U_9xwBk
 
Sure, it should be considered. But for example if we want the theropods (T-rex-type) to be running and the 12m
wingspan creatures to be flying, the solution of less gravity solves most problems in one go. Bone structure, heart muscle, blood vessels.

1641242755001.png

1641242205546.png
 
Last edited:
Here we go again guys! Check this new article, every week there's a "groundbreaking" find.... this time it's the largest ever found


Headlines like that are hilarious.

"NASA discovered a planet where it rains diamonds!"
"Rests of fire-spitting Tyrannosaurus Rex found in the graveyard of an Irish gypsy!"
"Buz Aldrin's cough medicine found on the moon!"
 
Headlines like that are hilarious.

"NASA discovered a planet where it rains diamonds!"
"Rests of fire-spitting Tyrannosaurus Rex found in the graveyard of an Irish gypsy!"
"Buz Aldrin's cough medicine found on the moon!"
I noticed that in the space related articles a lot of people are calling out the overwhelming bs but on the dinos articles, almost nothing
 
Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence and proof. Gravity is one such fantastic claim.

Current Science: I have 666 picasso paintings in my garage.... honest I do...believe me!!!
If aether be a universal pressure then each object shelters another from the pressure, which makes it appear that they are attracted. The area blocked means that the rate or variation of strength of attraction is covered by the square of the distance and not the cube, as it would if mass were the determinant. Right?
Why bother having any authentic original fossils at all if alleged replicas please the public?” </i><br/>
Mammals of the recent past were also monstrous. Australia has unique mammals: marsupials. Giant kangaroo, wombat etc all found in fair condition, all? their bones, no need to invent, when they fell into the many many sinkholes in the enormous limstone plateau, called the Nullarbor Plain, for obvious reasons.

There are indigenous tales about fantastic animals.
 
Last edited:
Found another gem to post here, the creature itself is kinda cool i admit, but look at this gigantic bull**** of a date!! The page that published it is called goldbugs or something like that on IG
Screenshot_20220314-003732_Instagram.jpg
 
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.
Back
Top