dinosaurs never existed. The dinosaur fossils were created by paleontologist scam artists.

[superdestructionyou]

You do realize that what you are proposing would literally the the biggest conspiracy ever proposed. It would involve scientists from virtually every nation on earth. You are talking about a conspiracy that would have lasted for over 200 years. What force could unite all these people from all over the world and keep the secret conspiracy going for all that time?

Its only a conspiracy if it can't be proved. I have shown AND EXPLAINED THE WAY TO CREATE A FOSSIL. Anyone can try it out and test if for themselves. Therein lies the PROOF. For I HAVE GIVEN THE PROOF.

 

[superdestructionyou]

Seems some people do not let reality interfere with their beliefs.

and what belief would that be. When did I mention religion.

 

[fantome profane]

Its only a conspiracy if it can't be proved. I have shown AND EXPLAINED THE WAY TO CREATE A FOSSIL. Anyone can try it out and test if for themselves. Therein lies the PROOF. For I HAVE GIVEN THE PROOF.

And can you bury your creation in solid rock?

 

[McBell]

and what belief would that be. When did I mention religion.

seriously?
You are much further gone that I thought.

I suspect you will be a rather interesting source of entertainment.

 

[McBell]

Its only a conspiracy if it can't be proved. I have shown AND EXPLAINED THE WAY TO CREATE A FOSSIL. Anyone can try it out and test if for themselves. Therein lies the PROOF. For I HAVE GIVEN THE PROOF.

You seem to have difficulty with the definitions of some of the words you use...

proof
belief
religion
explanation
conspiracy​

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Its only a conspiracy if it can't be proved. I have shown AND EXPLAINED THE WAY TO CREATE A FOSSIL. Anyone can try it out and test if for themselves. Therein lies the PROOF. For I HAVE GIVEN THE PROOF.

Still not clear on how a relatively simple casting method that is compositionally and chemically different from actual fossils amounts to proof of anything. Once again, we can open up fossils to find structural details on the inside as well as the outside, your casting method won't do that. We can also see vastly different microscopic structures including bits of melanins (https://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2015/09/092915-research-fossilcolor.html) and preserved protein structures (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html). All studied across multiple nations by institutions of diverse biological backgrounds, and some even verifiable by laymen such as aforementioned studying the inside of fossils under microscopes.
This is beginning to sound like such a lame attempt I am wondering at a Poe's law application.

 

[superdestructionyou]

sandstone statues vs fossils which are sandstone rock sediments.

here is a link saying that the dinosaur fossils are sandstone since someone kept on requesting a link
http://fphoto.photoshelter.com/image/I0000FKaXs3LACyw

 

[superdestructionyou]

Still not clear on how a relatively simple casting method that is compositionally and chemically different from actual fossils amounts to proof of anything. Once again, we can open up fossils to find structural details on the inside as well as the outside, your casting method won't do that. We can also see vastly different microscopic structures including bits of melanins (https://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2015/09/092915-research-fossilcolor.html) and preserved protein structures (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html). All studied across multiple nations by institutions of diverse biological backgrounds, and some even verifiable by laymen such as aforementioned studying the inside of fossils under microscopes.
This is beginning to sound like such a lame attempt I am wondering at a Poe's law application.

YOU NEED to rewatch this video

so that you and see that you can create every detail of an object in molding and casting a skeleton or any object.
you can also watch this

also basing it on the ration that most of the DINOSAUR FOSSILS do not contain any animal tissue its safe to assume someone added some animal tissue on purpose and accidently as most use real animals skeletons as refrence. That link about trex having same protein tissue with a chicken-really funny. Maybe someone was eating some chicken while creating the fossil and rub some greasy hands. In conclusion someone decided to add some chicken tissue to the fossil when they were creating it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

YOU NEED to rewatch this video

so that you and see that you can create every detail of an object in molding and casting a skeleton or any object.

I know how mold and casting is done. I have done it for many years. It won't do what you're claiming it would. You can't pour inside an enclosed chamber. And breaking open fossils reveal that there is MICROSCOPIC detail that no casting, not even high quality resins, will duplicate.

Sorry but you and this video are just simply wrong.

 

[superdestructionyou]

I know how mold and casting is done. I have done it for many years. It won't do what you're claiming it would. You can't pour inside an enclosed chamber. And breaking open fossils reveal that there is MICROSCOPIC detail that no casting, not even high quality resins, will duplicate.

Sorry but you and this video are just simply wrong.

if you did any casting you would know that you can create every fine detail of an skeleton. I suggest you post a picture of your so called enclosed chamber and microscopic detail you are referring to. A mold casting can create everything outside and inside the skeleton if their are even if their are holes in the skeleton. Wet sand stone casting can produce a well detailed smooth texture.

 

[superdestructionyou]

also with the time that I have I would also like to point out that contrary to the belief the dinosaur fossils blue prints were based on mammals rather than reptiles well the body for most of the part. Some were mixed with various animals skeletons
rhino
some parts of the rhino were used for triceratops

by the way this is a replica and not a bone buffalo

giraffe skeleton used for long knecks

horse

reptiles like the croc or lizards were barely used.

 

[Riverwolf]

if you actually took time to do a research you would know that the dinosaur fossils are rock sediment fossils. You claim they are not

No, I don't. You're claiming that scientists are saying things they're not, with no citations.

anyone can create an incomplete or complete fossil. What would be hard about creating an incomplete fossil. In fact it would be easier to create an incomplete fossil as it lessens the job of designing a completer fossil.

That doesn't change the fact that there's nothing to be gained from doing so.

the term scientist is vague and can mean anyone in the science field. A paleontologist is not a chemist or a doctor in the medical field. You must be specific and use paleontologists when dealing with dinosaurs or prehistoric animals. You can use geologist. The TERM "SCIENTISTS" IS OVERUSED BY MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO IDEA WHAT PALEONTOLOGY is or the process of discoverying fossils or any type of fossil.

I said "the sciences."

 

[Riverwolf]

Its only a conspiracy if it can't be proved.

No, a conspiracy is when a bunch of people get together to make secret plans.

I have shown AND EXPLAINED THE WAY TO CREATE A FOSSIL. Anyone can try it out and test if for themselves. Therein lies the PROOF. For I HAVE GIVEN THE PROOF.

No, you haven't.

You've merely provided a hypothetical scenario. You've not demonstrated that this has actually happened.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

if you did any casting you would know that you can create every fine detail of an skeleton. I suggest you post a picture of your so called enclosed chamber and microscopic detail you are referring to. A mold casting can create everything outside and inside the skeleton if their are even if their are holes in the skeleton. Wet sand stone casting can produce a well detailed smooth texture.

I already posted two links to you. And no, casting will not create the 'fine detail' fossils have. Especially since even fine grain sand casting is already larger grains than the minerals within fossils. And no casting method AT ALL. NONE. can replicate microscopic structure.

 

[superdestructionyou]

I already posted two links to you. And no, casting will not create the 'fine detail' fossils have. Especially since even fine grain sand casting is already larger grains than the minerals within fossils. And no casting method AT ALL. NONE. can replicate microscopic structure.

post it again. I also hope its not some random picture you found online because your saying that you have actually done casting and looked deep into a fossil.

 

[Riverwolf]

here is a link saying that the dinosaur fossils are sandstone since someone kept on requesting a link
http://fphoto.photoshelter.com/image/I0000FKaXs3LACyw

Here's what the sole paragraph at that link says:

FOSSILS
Archaeopteryx Fossil In Fossilized Sandstone
Archaeopteryx lithographica. Believed to be one of the first bird species to have evolved from the dinosaurs about 150 million years ago. Specimen from Oxford University Museum
​

Let's disentangle that key label, shall we?

"Archaopteryx Fossil" is the first element in this label. The second element is "In Fossilized Sandstone." Let me type the whole thing out again: "Archaeopteryx Fossil IN Fossilized Sandstone." The Archaeopteryx Fossil IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FOSSIL than the Fossilized Sandstone.

Otherwise, I'm sure you can tell me how pure sandstone can possibly contain melanin?

 

[superdestructionyou]

Here's what the sole paragraph at that link says:

FOSSILS
Archaeopteryx Fossil In Fossilized Sandstone
Archaeopteryx lithographica. Believed to be one of the first bird species to have evolved from the dinosaurs about 150 million years ago. Specimen from Oxford University Museum
​

Let's disentangle that key label, shall we?

"Archaopteryx Fossil" is the first element in this label. The second element is "In Fossilized Sandstone." Let me type the whole thing out again: "Archaeopteryx Fossil IN Fossilized Sandstone." The Archaeopteryx Fossil IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FOSSIL than the Fossilized Sandstone.

Otherwise, I'm sure you can tell me how pure sandstone can possibly contain melanin?

the fossils is of the same material of the batch of material, sand, in which the bone is buried in and fossilized in according to paleontologists.

but this never really occured nor can minerals seep into a bone that is covered by dry clumped sand. The same minerals that are claimed to be in a fossil are the same minerals found in cement. I also must warn you that the things said in the picture have huge amount of errors as the bone would have to rot first to minerals to try to replace it and once the sand were dry formed into hard sandstone no mineral would be able to seep in it.

 

[Riverwolf]

... the things said in the picture have huge amount of errors

And on what grounds do you judge that errors are being made? Are you a geologist? (And where'd you get that picture, anyway?)

And you still haven't explained how pure sandstone can have melanin. You do know what that is, right?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

post it again. I also hope its not some random picture you found online because your saying that you have actually done casting and looked deep into a fossil.

Still not clear on how a relatively simple casting method that is compositionally and chemically different from actual fossils amounts to proof of anything. Once again, we can open up fossils to find structural details on the inside as well as the outside, your casting method won't do that. We can also see vastly different microscopic structures including bits of melanins (https://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2015/09/092915-research-fossilcolor.html) and preserved protein structures (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html). All studied across multiple nations by institutions of diverse biological backgrounds, and some even verifiable by laymen such as aforementioned studying the inside of fossils under microscopes.
This is beginning to sound like such a lame attempt I am wondering at a Poe's law application.

You can also look into sinus and brainpan studies in fossil skills as well as marrow studies to see how detailed they are. And not just detailed but enclosed. Casts are solid objects not hollow objects. If they were simply casted like your videos claim, there should be no hollow spaces and certainly not hollow spaces with microscopic structures!

 

[Valjean]

I had thought that the real fossils were actual bone but than when I did a research I found out that dinosaur fossils were not bones but rock sediments like sandstone, limestone, etc. Their are various rock sediments but the main ones that dinosaur and prehistoric animal fossils are made out of are sandstone which is sand and cement mixed. Rock sediments are tiny powder pieces of rock or sand and this case its SAND.
My suspicion grew. How could a skeleton system made out of real bone turn into rock. The claim is just outrageous so I did a research. I researched what fossils where, what a rock sediment was, when and who discovered the dinosaurs by date and what where the first discovered dinosaurs. What I found was surprising.

Why is this claim outrageous? You can google explanations of the mechanisms: replacement and permineralization, in a few seconds. They're even mentioned in one of your links below.
Just where did you do this research -- and where did you find a source saying fossil bones were sandstone?
This is an argument from incredulity. Lots of things seem incredible at first glance -- horseless carriages, light bulbs, pictures broadcast through the air, relativity -- till the mechanisms are explained.
You can see why I'm skeptical of this "research"you claimed you did.

I found out that CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND masonries had been producing statues and ornaments made out of sand since ancient history going back to the time of egypt. All they were doing was mixing sand and cement to produce a sandstone object. So what the paleontologist scam artists did was to borrow these techniques to produce a sandstone fossil.

Because masons can produce a replica of a fossil all fossils are artificial? How does this follow?
A fossil-shaped block of concrete is easily distinguished from a fossil. We've explained this to you. Why do you refuse to accept the explanation?
The logistics, co-ordination and expense required to pull off this massive fraud, at thousands of sites all over the world, over centuries, while keeping the whole enterprise secret, are mind boggling. It's simply inconceivable

Anyway here is long explanation.
dinosaurs, cavemen and prehistoric animals never existed. Fossils are rock sediment impressions made out of rock sediments like sandstone and not bone. You can mix wet cement and sand to produce a sandstone fossil and can even use lime powder to produce a limestone fossil.

No you can not!
How many times do we have to explain this to you? You can produce a bone-shaped block of concrete, but it's no more a fossil than Michelangelo's David is a real person. They're easy to distinguish.

The first dinosaur fossils were created by paleontologist scam artists. The first paleo scam artists that started from 1856-1890 the scamming is O.C mash, joseph leidy and edward cope...

Are you basing your allegations of fraud on the "dinosaur wars" of the late 1800s?
Marsh and Cope did get carried away. They sabotaged each other's work at every opportunity, but they had no need to fake anything -- and they were just two, high profile fanatics out of tens of thousands all over the world

So the scam artists, O.C marsh, joseph leidy and edward cope created the fossils and than picked a location in isolated locations in colorado and Wyoming than spilled some pool of watery lime/sand mixed with cement on the location and than buried the fossils in the spilled pool of sand/lime mixed cement. Once it was dry they pretended to be digging in that location of course they had armed men preventing anyone from spying on what they were doing.

There is absolutely no evidence of this, and the guards were deployed to prevent spying and sabotage by each other.
An interesting documentary:

Okay LET ME make this more clearer. Before 1856 DINOSAURS DID NOT EXIST AND NO ONE EVEN NEW WHAT THE TERM DINOSAURS. You must REALIZE DINOSAUR FOSSILS WERE NEVER BEEN FOUND BEFORE 1856

Sure they did. They were just not recognized for what they were, nor their significance appreciated.

I can't understand why you posted the Youtube links. They have nothing to do with your allegations of massive fraud. In fact, they support the reality of deep time and genuine fossils.

Thank you for reading. You can visit my youtube page for more videos if you are curious more.

Link to your youtube page?