Cryptozoology forums > Cryptids > Prehistoric Survivors? > view thread
Subject: Re: New website
From: raditz posted Mon, Oct 19 2009, 6:03pm 
I was reading about the engravings, and how they were proven to be quite old. That's the dating I meant. It had something to do with a layer over the engravings, those without the layer were hoaxes, but the ones with it were very old. Some of the non-hoaxed engravings had the dinosaur-like images on them.

That's the information I have, I'm just wondering where I can find more. No offense to you, but I'd like to read what people who have actually held them and studied them have to say - though I can definately understand your reasoning.
Subject: Re: New website
From: luna1580 posted Mon, Oct 19 2009, 9:07pm 
can you tell us were you read that the engravings (not the undateable rocks) were found to be "old"?
Subject: Re: New website
From: raditz posted Mon, Oct 19 2009, 11:55pm 
Various place on the net, perhaps wiki, and several books. I believe Jerome Clark and perhaps John Keel have written on the subject.
Subject: Re: New website
From: Rainbow Medicine Man posted Tue, Oct 20 2009, 1:54am 
Yes, the problem with the web is that sometimes it is hard to ascertain what is fake and what is not. It is easy to write "some of the stones were old", or "my Aunt Mary had a dino pet". I say we must use "common sense". And extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. The burden of the proof is on the one who makes the claim, not on the disclaimer. Living dinos?. I can deny that sitting on my chair. But to prove they exist you MUST show an specimen...or at least, a carcass (not a beluga one). Same for one-of-a-kind artifacts. Like, them million years old spheres with circular grooves around the "equator". They're not man-made bearing balls, but natural artifacts, and there's a process described on how they form. And so on.
Subject: Re: New website
From: raditz posted Tue, Oct 20 2009, 9:11am 
I've read on the subject from several sources, including published books, written by people who have studied the subject. From everything I have read, it would seem that the argument that they are hoaxed is a slightly misinformed one. I am interested in the stones regardless of the outcome, and was asking for a source that would explain the hoax explanation given in this thread.

Living dinos?. I can deny that sitting on my chair.


I never said anything about living dinos. If you must know, I do 100% believe that at one point in history, man and dinosaur walked the earth together. That doesn't necessarily mean that I think they're still alive this very day. The number of artifacts and written accounts in ages past, suggesting that people were looking at and describing dinosaurs intrigues me. In my own opinion there are enough of these artifacts and accounts to justify a study in the subject.

Of course you deny it without batting an eye, because it goes against the current scientific paradigm. I'm one of those people that thinks everything we know is wrong, so I suppose that makes me free to take certain subjects more seriously than other people can.
Subject: Re: New website
From: Rainbow Medicine Man posted Tue, Oct 20 2009, 12:28pm 
"I'm one of those people that thinks everything we know is wrong"

Be careful, you're using a keyboard that's surely wrong, then. Be careful, you're going to use a car, sooner or later, and it can be wrong, too. And, why tell you about planes?. They can be wrong, of course...your language is wrong, so you'll be unable to transmit your meanings...man, please, surely not EVERYTHING we humans know is wrong !.

OK, when you show me convincing evidence that dinos did not go extinct sixty five million years ago, or that humans were around sixty six million years ago, give or take, I'll believe you. Till then I'll go with what not only is evident, but is also accepted by the 99,99999% of people around, including dinophil and cloudedboy. Deal?.
Subject: Re: New website
From: raditz posted Tue, Oct 20 2009, 3:59pm 
1. Don't be retarded, you know what I mean by everything we know is wrong.

2. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

3. Prove anything to me.

4. I'm done speaking with you, I've been more than fair with my statements. I think I've made it pretty clear that I'm not arguing anything with anybody, I believe what I believe. All I did was ask for information and you're trying to turn it into a back and forth "I'm right you're wrong" discussion. Go fight with somebodyelse. That's the one thing I hate about this place, doesn't matter what you say or how you say it, there's always a couple people that pick apart every little thing you say, then treat it like you're trying to prove something. I'm not. It's supposed to be a discussion on ideas. Some of you are respectful of others opinions even if you disagree. Other's act like Medicine Man and skim through every post looking for a fight.
Subject: Re: New website
From: Rainbow Medicine Man posted Tue, Oct 20 2009, 4:42pm 
1 Sorry man, I am what I am. "Everything we know is wrong" is a pretty inclusive statement, and I can't possibly discern what specific portion of knowledge you are making reference to. If you are a bit more specific we can maybe discuss, as you say. So, I DON'T know what you mean.

2 OK, good for you. So what?.

3 Mmmmm...nothing can be "proved". Nothing. One can show evidence. But then, my perceptions are not yours...But, why would you want me to prove "anything" to you?. Say, that two plus two on a base ten makes four?.

4 You asked for info and I supplied what I had, now what's your problem?. If you don't want to debate with me, that's OK, your prerrogative. Good for you, Hooray and all that. Have a nice day and may you find gigantic amounts of evidence against the stablishment. May you be blessed and may you win the lotto...


Close Window