Post: #51

(04-27-2017 08:30 PM)Mekorig Wrote:  First time i heard the Incas making sacrifies to "Dragon Gods". And actualy their sacrifices were more in the "lets drug some virgins with coca and chicha and left them to mumify in a high mountain" than in "lets rip their heart out". Also, i you check mesoamerican myth, the only dragon-like diety is basically Quetzalcoatl (and mostly its feathered serpent wing was more simbolic than anything else).

Amaru was the name the the Incas used in Peru.
Quetzalcoatl was the Aztec name in Mexico
Kukulkan was the Maya name in Mexico.


Different names and slightly different forms....always the same evil creature.

Post: #52

A longer list of Dragon names across human cultures is here:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dr...d_folklore

Post: #53

I'm not sure what's sadder.

"Dinosaurs didn't exist but dragons did" or smart and highly repped members wasting their time trying to educate the one forum member that Alex Jones would distance himself from.

What's more, Mercenary isn't simply content to peddle his wing-nuttery in good humour but instead feels it necessary to label dissenters as "naive".

Mercenary's account may yet turn out to be the most deeply embedded troll account the RVF has ever seen. Possibly a creation of the venerated Suits. I only say this because I've never seen such a vast spectrum of tin foil hattery emanate from a person who didn't explode and ninja-vanish when their bizarre claims were rebuked with concentrated fact-shaming.

Post: #54

I like debunking theories like this. It reminds me of my TA days, fun stuff.

You know, for a couple hours anyway.

Post: #55

(04-27-2017 08:59 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I'm not sure what's sadder.

"Dinosaurs didn't exist but dragons did" or smart and highly repped members wasting their time trying to educate the one forum member that Alex Jones would distance himself from.

What's more, Mercenary isn't simply content to peddle his wing-nuttery in good humour but instead feels it necessary to label dissenters as "naive".

Mercenary's account may yet turn out to be the most deeply embedded troll account the RVF has ever seen. Possibly a creation of the venerated Suits. I only say this because I've never seen such a vast spectrum of tin foil hattery emanate from a person who didn't explode and ninja-vanish when their bizarre claims were rebuked with concentrated fact-shaming.

That's quite an accusation coming from a member with a rep of 95, but not 1 single one of those is for a meetup with another RVF member in the real world.

The more than 15 RVF members who have met me in real life know I'm legit, and many of those who haven't still take the time to put in a word of appreciation for the work I put in to help other men, especially with regard to helping them overcome unhealthy addictions.

It's a shame you just like scoring points by keyboard jockeying rather than actually getting off your ass and doing something for the community offline rather than spending all your time gaslighting me in various threads.

Post: #56

I'd be quite happy to ignore your bizarre theories except that you go out of your way to insult other members rather than play the ball, and that makes you fair game.

And I'm thrilled to hear that you've met other members and help people out in the world, but that doesn't give you a free pass to shit on people because they believe the world is round, that dinosaurs existed and that dragons didn't, that the LHC was not built to create a portal to hell and that North Korea is not a utopian wonderland.

People have repped me because what I say makes sense. You might want to take that into consideration.

Post: #57

(04-27-2017 09:46 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I'd be quite happy to ignore your bizarre theories except that you go out of your way to insult other members rather than play the ball, and that makes you fair game.

And I'm thrilled to hear that you've met other members and help people out in the world, but that doesn't give you a free pass to shit on people because they believe the world is round, that dinosaurs existed and that dragons didn't, that the LHC was not built to create a portal to hell and that North Korea is not a utopian wonderland.

What are you talking about ?
I have not insulted a single member personaly. Not here and not in the other threads you mentioned.
If that were the case I would have already gotten several warnings.
False accusation.

Post: #58

(04-27-2017 05:18 PM)Repo Wrote:  Dropping oxygen levels are consistant with a large meteor strike as the dust clouds would wipe out plants too.

I don't think the difference would be large enough to detect in the geologic record, because I don't think the dust would stick around long enough.

Dust doesn't just float in the air for years. It comes down in rain. That's why raindrops form: the dust motes are basically sites for moisture to precipitate out of the air.

I'm not saying the meteor had nothing at all to do with things. I just think saying the meteor alone was the cause is crap and doesn't fit the evidence. It might've been the straw that broke the camel's back, or maybe it set up unfavorable conditions that other things like lava flows amplified. I'm sure it wasn't just benign.

Post: #59

(04-27-2017 08:59 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I'm not sure what's sadder.

"Dinosaurs didn't exist but dragons did" or smart and highly repped members wasting their time trying to educate the one forum member that Alex Jones would distance himself from.

What's more, Mercenary isn't simply content to peddle his wing-nuttery in good humour but instead feels it necessary to label dissenters as "naive".

Mercenary's account may yet turn out to be the most deeply embedded troll account the RVF has ever seen. Possibly a creation of the venerated Suits. I only say this because I've never seen such a vast spectrum of tin foil hattery emanate from a person who didn't explode and ninja-vanish when their bizarre claims were rebuked with concentrated fact-shaming.

I love being right.

Post: #60

(04-27-2017 09:55 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 05:18 PM)Repo Wrote:  Dropping oxygen levels are consistant with a large meteor strike as the dust clouds would wipe out plants too.

I don't think the difference would be large enough to detect in the geologic record, because I don't think the dust would stick around long enough.

Dust doesn't just float in the air for years. It comes down in rain. That's why raindrops form: the dust motes are basically sites for moisture to precipitate out of the air.

I'm not saying the meteor had nothing at all to do with things. I just think saying the meteor alone was the cause is crap and doesn't fit the evidence. It might've been the straw that broke the camel's back, or maybe it set up unfavorable conditions that other things like lava flows amplified. I'm sure it wasn't just benign.

Nah their are actually studies that say it would last for years given a big enough meteor. Same for certain supervolcanoes suspected of also causing mass extinction events. We are talking large enough to literally send dirt flying into outer space, above where most clouds form. Also, the largest asteroid impacts would set off volcanoes around the world.

On phone so can't dig too much for links, but heres one:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater

Post: #61

All this stuff is highly theoretical, and it's all based from the assumption that the dinosaurs were killed by the Chicxulub meteor. The thing that the meteor theory cannot explain is why the die offs were so slow. There should've been virtually zero dinosaurs found after the tektite boundary defining the Chicxulub impact, but that's not how it went.

I also don't think it's at all established that a large meteor impact would cause global volcanic eruptions. Maybe a few, but not a ton of them. Volcanism just doesn't work that way. The earth isn't a rubber ball full of jelly with pinholes in it, waiting to be squeezed.

Fact is, we don't really know with any certainty. A lot of scientists think the meteor theory is correct, I don't, that's fine. Maybe we'll find more evidence over time.

This is interesting: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/...after-all/

It basically says dinosaurs were already in decline thanks in part to the Deccan Traps (great minds think alike!), and the Chicxulub impact may have just put the cap on their extinction. I would buy that.

Besides the fact that the literature just didn't convince me of the meteor's guilt, I don't believe a meteor that didn't literally whang a huge chunk of the crust into space would cause such a large extinction because earth systems aren't prone to that sort of catastrophism. Big changes almost never happen because of single events like this. The systems are too well buffered. That's why there have only been five mass extinctions, despite the fact that we've had a lot more than five large impacts since life began. According to ye olde Wikipedia, the planet gets hit with a 1 km+ meteor every 440,000 years on average. That means we've been hit by at least 145 large meteors since the dinosaurs went extinct, and presumably at least some of those were close to the size of the Chicxulub meteor.

Post: #62

The premise of this thread is totally ridiculous, but it's good to know what half-baked revelation the Eric Dubays of the world have concocted for the more naive elements to bite on, they get better every time.

And speaking of meteors, this one hasn't wiped out any dinosaurs but it will wipe out your thirst, good stuff:

Post: #63

Yeah it definately isnt an exact science, and I'm sure no theory is bulletproof. Would just like to point out that meteor was 6 miles across, I believe there was only one known asteroid larger, and that was suspected to be 2 billion years ago. And I don't think there are many "systems" for buffering dirt clouds forming above rain clouds, other than waiting it out. Regardless of if this event caused the dinasaurs to go extinct, there was a mass extinction during this time.

Post: #64

Well, unless the dust is actually in orbit it's not going to stay above the atmosphere. Fine dust stays suspended, whether in water or air, because it's basically being held up by the motion of the atoms/molecules in the "fluid". Any dust that wasn't literally in orbit would fall right back into the atmosphere, and then serve as a nucleation site for a rain drop.

It's really hard to guess how many really large meteors hit us, because if it hit the ocean we might well not even know the crater is there--we don't have great ocean floor maps, and any crater could easily have filled in with sediment or been subducted--and if it hit the continents it would only persist for a few million years tops before eroding completely in most of the places where it might hit land. Only the craters in really geologically stable, low erosion places would survive for any length of time, geologically speaking.

This is the problem with geology, and it's the sort of thing that drove my 101 students mad. There's not much we can say we're really positive about. It's mostly about learning the mechanisms of geologic processes, then putting together a "this seems most likely" scenario. It's like solving a puzzle where you never really know if you're right, you just gave it your best go with the evidence you had.

Post: #65

But how did that meteor manage to break through the firmament, and the glass dome that covers the earth disc? Hmmm...

Post: #66

Quote:10.
An extinction-level event of this magnitude would have destroyed all life on Earth, not just the dinosaurs; this would be evident archaeologically.

Extinction-level events don't destroy all life - extinction is not defined by the ending of life, but the sudden disappearances of species.

There are 5 known major extinctions, where more than 60% of species were suddenly wiped out, but in none of these extinctions did all life die.

Wikipedia has a nice summary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction...ion_events

Quote:9.
There would not have been enough food or fresh water for plant-based animals this big to have lived

The earth was about 12 degrees hotter in that era (i.e 65 millions years ago).



Have you ever noticed the difference in the size of bugs/pests between tropical and non-tropical areas of the world? In tropical areas, animals can spend energy growing instead of dealing with the elements. Plants also grow much bigger in warmer climates - that's why people build greenhouses, to give plants that warmth, because cellular division in plants requires less energy in a warm climate. Now imagine the whole planet being a tropical jungle - basically a massive greenhouse - and you've got these huge plants with huge insects cross pollinating them like crazy, and then you have enough plant mass to grow big ass creatures.

That's not to say there were no cold areas/seasons, climate models do suggest that snowfall occurred in some regions, but overall the earth was warmer.

Unfortunately, we have no idea how these animals functions physiologically. Without having a living sample, we can't know how these animals processed energy and water on a chemical level. It's possible that dinosaurs were adapted, like modern day desert reptiles, to be extremely water efficient. Perhaps they were also more energy efficient as well - because it was so warm, they didn't need to use energy to maintain body temperature, so they shifted their metabolism to a super-efficient manner of running (in contrast, in the human body, we waste the majority of our energy as body heat - we are extremely inefficient in the use of our energy, but that does mean we deal with environmental cold stress with relative ease). So even if there was not enough plant matter for giant creatures with modern metabolism, it's possible that dinosaurs had a different metabolism that allowed them to grow to a huge size.

Furthermore, we don't know if dinosaur fossils are a representative sample - it's possible that most dinosaurs were a lot smaller, but only the biggest baddest dinosaurs had bones sturdy enough to fossilize. Paleontologist do admit that the fossil record is relatively non-representative, because only an extremely tiny percentage of dinosaurs actually became fossils. So even the scientists admit that the picture we have of dinosaurs is currently still very incomplete. That means that maybe dinosaurs were actually smaller than we suppose.

Quote:8.
No one is allowed to question the Dinosaur Orthodoxy without extremely harsh criticism

Sometimes people are criticized for violating social standards or threatening the powers of the elite.

Sometimes people are criticized because they are being silly.

I admit that it can be hard to tell the difference at times.

Let's put emotion aside and discuss dinosaurs without putting our egos into it. Let criticism be met with counter-argument, not with empassioned victimhood.

I am open to believing dinosaurs are fake, given enough reasonable evidence.

I don't believe science has hard, definitive answers to anything in life. It only gives reasoned guesses, at best. So I don't see the need to be dogmatic, but I also don't see the need to accept any counter-argument that comes along that cannot withstand critique.

Quote:7.
Dinosaurs were too big to have existed with the confines of the laws of physics

We don't know how dinosaur metabolism worked so we can't say how they transformed energy into power. We also don't know what their soft tissue composition was really like.

It's possible that they had absolutely no fat, making them extremely lightweight. Considering that the earth was mostly a giant tropical jungle at that point, it would make sense not to have any fat stores, because food was plentiful, so fat energy was not required, and insulation was not needed, so heat trapping by fat was not required.

Another possibility is that their bodies consisted mostly of air sacs, making them extremely light despite their large size. This article discusses that possibility:
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/...per-sized/

Quote:6.
Lack of perpetual fossil evidence - everyone should be finding these bones in their backyards

Fossilization is an extremely rare event. It's just that so many animals have died over millions of years that we have managed to inherit some fossils into our modern age. Fossilization is basically like winning the lottery, which makes finding one in your backyard also like winning the lottery - it happens, but not to everyone.

Here is a story of a guy who discovered a fossil while hiking near his home:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...story.html

Quote:5.
Radiocarbon dating, also known as Carbon-14 Dating, cannot date back longer than 40,000 years

That's why uranium and potassium dating is used.

Admittedly, dinosaur bones don't usually contain uranium or potassium. Rocks do, though.

So the age of the dinosaur bones is usually guessed from the surrounding rock the bones are found in.

Quote:4.
Dinosaurs did not exist in mythology in any culture before the 1800s

Debatable. Large monstrous creatures exist in every mythology. Where did the inspiration for these stories come from?

Quote:3.
A full skeleton or a dinosaur has never been found - not even close to one

Depends on what you define as 'close'.

This skeleton is about 98% complete:



I don't see why the lack of 2% should cancel out the existence of the 98% - evidence of an absent 2% does not mean there is an absence of evidence of dinosaurs.

Quote:2.
There is more evidence for the presupposition of dinosaurs than the other way around

I don't understand what this means. I'm guessing it means that there is evidence that people uncritically accept the existence of dinosaurs?

I can't really critique this without a detailed list of the so-called 'evidence'.

Quote:1.
Even an extinction-level event would not have destroyed the dinosaurs who lived in the deep-ocean

Why not? It's weird that argument 10 claims all life must be destroyed, while argument 1 claims that some life must survive.

We don't know why the dinosaurs died out, so we don't know if the dinosaurs in the ocean would have survived the extinction-triggering event/s. Presumably, ocean-going dinosaurs had similar physiological features to their land-going cousins and the same environmental stressor may have affected them both.

Also, the deep ocean is filled with fish. Since dinosaurs were much younger than fish, it would have been an uphill battle to find an ecological niche in the deep ocean. Dinosaurs were presumably much fewer in the deep ocean to begin with and may not have been well adapted to survive in the long run anyway.

Furthermore, the deep ocean has not yet been fully explored and for all we know, dinosaurs are still down there.

Post: #67

All I know is that this movie was awesome and was about 20-30 minutes too short:



And per Christian Bale, "Day berned duh dinosaurs tuh ash."

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #68

(04-27-2017 10:08 PM)Repo Wrote:  [quote='weambulance' pid='1560057' dateline='1493348159']

Nah their are actually studies that say it would last for years given a big enough meteor. Same for certain supervolcanoes suspected of also causing mass extinction events. We are talking large enough to literally send dirt flying into outer space, above where most clouds form. Also, the largest asteroid impacts would set off volcanoes around the world.

On phone so can't dig too much for links, but heres one:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater

A meteor large enough to do what they theorise would have to:

A) Leave a crater so big it would be visible from space

B) Leave chunks of meteor pieces behind so big they would rival mountains

C) Possibly knock the earth out of orbit.

Post: #69

(04-28-2017 01:12 AM)911 Wrote:  But how did that meteor manage to break through the firmament, and the glass dome that covers the earth disc? Hmmm...

Under a flat earth model meteors as defined as "rocks from space" do not exist, nor does outer space.
"Meteors" are theorised as a sort of fireball without anything solid inside them.
Craters are either enormous sinkholes or created by forces beneath the ground.
This idea attemps to explain why there is basically almost no meteor rocks anywhere that in any way match the size of most claimed large impact sites.

Post: #70

(04-28-2017 03:56 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 01:12 AM)911 Wrote:  But how did that meteor manage to break through the firmament, and the glass dome that covers the earth disc? Hmmm...

Under a flat earth model meteors as defined as "rocks from space" do not exist, nor does outer space.
"Meteors" are theorised as a sort of fireball without anything solid inside them.
Craters are either enormous sinkholes or created by forces beneath the ground.
This idea attemps to explain why there is basically almost no meteor rocks anywhere that in any way match the size of most claimed large impact sites.

Post: #71

(04-28-2017 01:30 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  ..



..

Obviously a fake!

This one is, however, real:

Post: #72

(04-28-2017 03:49 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  A meteor large enough to do what they theorise would have to:

A) Leave a crater so big it would be visible from space

B) Leave chunks of meteor pieces behind so big they would rival mountains

C) Possibly knock the earth out of orbit.

(04-28-2017 03:56 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(04-28-2017 01:12 AM)911 Wrote:  But how did that meteor manage to break through the firmament, and the glass dome that covers the earth disc? Hmmm...

Under a flat earth model meteors as defined as "rocks from space" do not exist, nor does outer space.
"Meteors" are theorised as a sort of fireball without anything solid inside them.
Craters are either enormous sinkholes or created by forces beneath the ground.
This idea attemps to explain why there is basically almost no meteor rocks anywhere that in any way match the size of most claimed large impact sites.

Come on, man, this is basic physics. Newtonian even, not the weird complicated kind with strings and foam. It's not even slightly controversial within the scientific community that big rocks hitting earth don't behave the way you claim they should.

That sort of talk reminds me of a quote from Heinlein's Farmer in the Sky: "I have the advantage of not knowing too much about the subject."

Post: #73

Merc, I'm going to say this very nicely, since, as you have pointed out, you have been helpful to quite a few members of this forum.

Put simply, there is such a thing as going 'too deep' down the conspiracy rabbit hole.

While there is much to be said for having a healthy sense of skepticism towards the information being presented to us from so-called 'accepted sources', the effects of straying beyond the golden mean of being critical can be just as bad as being on the other end of the spectrum: blindly accepting the stated truths on all matters.

Right now it seems that you are in a state whereby you are (consciously or not) uncritically accepting or giving unworthy respect for theories which challenge mainstream conceptions, simply for the sake of them being outlandishly contrarian theories. To illustrate what I mean by 'unworthy respect', consider the fact that members such as Weambulance and others have put a lot of work into breaking down step-by-step in a logical manner why a number of the theories that you have presented don't hold up to the light of day. In fact, at least for the threads of yours that I can recall (flat earth, demon portal, this one) the cracks in the theories that you have presented can be immediately realised at first glance, not even requiring any kind of serious consideration of the arguments for the theories. And thus the respect that you give to these theories is really quite worrisome, given how thin most of them (or to be honest all that I have seen so far) really are.

While I agree it can be fun to see just how crazy some alternate theories on certain topics can be, it really seems that you are buying into it way too deeply. If you spend too much time on these low-quality conspiracy sites and watch too many of the outlandish theories of Alex Jones (not saying that he doesn't have some good things to say), at a certain point of time you lose your sense of reality, of what is up, and what is down, what is a reasonable, well-presented argument, and what is a childishly contrarian, thin, and unsubstantial alternative theory.

Honestly my recommendation would be to take a break from your conspiracy news sites, psychedelic substances, and posting about these theories on this forum or elsewhere on the internet, at the very least for a month or two. I'm not saying this to be a dick, but rather because you have shown no reasonable response to the healthy criticism and logical rebuttals provided by some of our more patient members over the last couple threads, as well as no growth in your level of thinking from these opportunities provided to you by these members. Hopefully a period of abstinence would provide for some kind of a mental reset, from which you can start over.

Maybe some more well-read members would be willing to post some recommendations for reading material to replace your current informational diet, my first instinct would be to spend time reading some of the Ancient Greek classics.

In any case, I wish you all the best.

Post: #74

(04-28-2017 04:30 AM)Rigsby Wrote:  This one is, however, real:

I've always liked that drawing of me, though they made my dick too small.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #75

(04-28-2017 05:41 AM)thebassist Wrote:  Merc, I'm going to say this very nicely, since, as you have pointed out, you have been helpful to quite a few members of this forum.

*snip*

In any case, I wish you all the best.

thebassist, thank you for your long and well thought out post.

Once again, I have to emphasize how I'm here to encourage discussion. Never in this thread or the other ones you mention did I ever claim my ideas were real. They are theories I think are worth discussing and nothing more.

Also, the flat earth thread was not started by me, but by cardguy...I simply have kept it going with topics to discuss.

One important thing I have to point out is that I have never taken hard drugs or psychedelic substances of any kind. That is 100% false. Not one single single time in my life. However I have personaly spoken to, (and read various testimonies of) those who have, including the RVF threads on DMT and Ayahuasca as well as that on Sleep Paralysis, all of which seem seem to strongly indicate that the realms of good and evil spirits mentioned in all major world religions are real things. However, I am not going to ever try these drugs because I believe the "things" people communicate with when taking these substances are demonic in nature under the false guise of benevolence. If you want a real mystical experience from God you have to work for it...such as by never masturbating again and giving up porn.

I don't read conspiracy websites on a regular basis.
A lot of my news comes from Xinhua, NHK, and RT, the Chinese, Japanese and Russian TV channels.
I believe Alex Jones is controlled opposition....his lawyer claims he plays a character and he backed off from the pizzagate issue real fast.

As for the greek classics that's quite funny you recommend them, considering the ancient greeks believed in all sorts of strange large mythical creatures.

Once again thanks for your concern, however it's an unwarranted worry.
I'm going out for lunch with other forum members this week, all who have hung out with me often, and those who have met me in real life know i'm a reliable wingman in both day and night game, and overall a well headed guy who likes asking questions. Thanks again anyway for the non emotional, level headed post.