Dinosaurs and the reduced felt effect of gravity

The statement I'd originally linked to is gone and I don't see anything on the internet at present which you'd call an absolute authority. The statement originally came from Bechtel and not the corps of engineers, Bechtel being the organization which would end up dealing with something like that were need to arise. Apparently somebody'd asked a couple of their engineers if anything could move that stone and the answer was basically no.Moreover, in real life, you could only rope or chain so many humans, elephants, oxen, or anything else together before the question of how to organize such an effort reached critical mass, the weight of the chains also a critical problem. You'd never get that many elephants or whatever to pull together properly, even if it were possible, which it isn't.

>The Ica Stones, however, are recent forgeries.Not hardly. The various claims to have debunked the Ica stones have basically been debunked. The original group of the stones which turned up were in the thousands, and they are all very intricate and ornate.In real life, that's just too much work for anybody to do on the speculative hope that gringos would buy thousands of such things. Yeah, gringos are stupid, but I'm not betting five years or ten years worth of work (by the whole village) on it.
Cabrera's debunking of the professional skeptics and debunkers.

Petroglyphs didn't survive to our day by luck. Indians would come along and touch up the paint every 30 - 50 years or so, and the horns you see on the Mishipishuimage at Agawa rock are clear such a later addition. Oral traditions describe Mishipishu as having a sawtooth back and a spiked tail, which he used as a weapon. That's basically a stegosaur. The sawtooth back is still plainly visible in the image and no other animal past or present had one.Mishipishu tried to adapt to life in water (to deal with the weight) after the change in gravity but, having no real adaptation for aquatic life, he didn't make it for terribly long.

Touched up eh? Kind of like how the bible was touched up to fit contempory beliefs. The picture you showed does not look like a stegosaur..It looks like a cape buffalo. The ridges on the back could be interpreted as billowing hair. Abby has stated that for your argument to fly you must eliminate all other possibilties otherwise it is speculation and without merit.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Touching up does not solve your problems. I said the neck and the head were wrong.Compare these pictures: Note the long neck of the stegosaur would be in an area of unpainted rock on the petroglyph, so there is no way that it could have been altered by "touchups" ... and when you are done with that, compare the lengths of the legs on the (model) skeleton front and back -- rear legs are almost 2x the length of the front legs. On the petroglyph the front legs as long as the rear legs, again like a bull. Finally look at the scale of the plates along the back between the real model and the petroglyph. Orders of magnitude wrong again. These are not errors that would be made by people familiar with the actual creatures.Like I said before, these kinds of pages rely on sensationalism based on incredulity, gullibility and lack of awareness regarding alternates. Another word is ignorance, which is curable through education of the willing.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

> The picture you showed does not look like a stegosaur..It looks like a cape buffalo....Then surely you must know of a place where the cape buffalo have sawtooth backs like the animal in the picture. Where is it?My usual practice in forums is to reply to intelligent posts and ignore non-intelligent posts. You figure to get ignored a lot by that standard.

- The government told the guy who found them that he would get 20-30 years in prison, unless he said they were forgeries. They didn't want to end up with the problems Egypt has.- Because of that, not much real research has went into it.- The Flintstones do not mean that we live along side of dinosaurs.- There may not be much other evidence of this civilization because of Europe's "exploration" of the new world.Also: What is the cause for the gravity change? Is it still a working hypothesis or has the guy published his research yet?

Hi Redwolf, I was mistaken, your pictograph looks like a wildebeest not a cape buffalo. redwolf's dinosaur Im sawweee I hert ems wittle feelwings. You still have not provided adequate evidence to support your stupidity. On the contrary, I usually only respond to incredibly ignorant unsubstanciated dogmatic stupidity. You seem to get alot of responses by that standard. Your claim that the picture you posted is that it is a dinosaur, in order for that to be proven you must be able to eliminate all other possibilites I have posted one and provided a link. Could it be possible that this is what the ancient men have pictured? Lets think about it logically, Dinosaurs not contemporary with humans OR... Wildebeest contemporary with humans. Duh I wonder which it is? *edit to add* WAIT FOR LINK TO LOAD***[This message has been edited by 1.61803, 04-18-2004]

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

See photo 3 of the 17 on the slide show on that page. The somewhat spikey mane of the wildbeest is a far better match to Ted's pictures than the large plates of the Steggasourus. The image is not directly linkable, unfortunately.Also, for those interested, here is a web site on No webpage found at provided URL: Moving Large Objects, which includes some pictures of moving the lighthouse; and pictures from ancient records of how large statues were moved. Cheers -- Sylas

So am I supposed to feel insulted if you don't answer my post? Or is it that you just don't have an answer? Or that you don't understand that the pictograph cannot represent a stegosaurus, but is instead is some mythological beast of Native lore, much like a griffin or a flying dragon.Care for a nail in the coffin for the stego-sorry case? Why would the natives identify a herbivore as a member of the (carnivorous) cat family?The link just in case you missed it is:
http://EvC Forum: Dinosaurs and the reduced felt effect of gravityNow let's revisit the "triceratops" picture:Here is a wooly rhino and a triceratops for comparison:
Notice the straight backs of the pictograph and the wooly rhino versus the down-sloping back of the triceratops, also the curvature of the horns, and the lack of the triceratops head "shield" in the pictograph.enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Here're a couple of what I'd regard as better elephant pictures:First a typical elephant skeleton:This is the way elephants stand around most of the time. Notice that the legs are straight underneath the creatures and that the spine arches upwards instead of down as in most quadrupeds; the reason for that is fairly obvious, for a creature which can weigh 14000 lbs.Now, if you think you might have seen that sort of construction somewhere else before, you're right; here's where you've seen it:The basic roman arch, which is the basic building block of aquaducts and colleseum alike, directs weight straight down and the columns under the arch bear it straight to the ground. The Romans and whoever designed the elephant were absolutely on the same sheet of music.Now, in present gravity, that is the way weight has to be supported. In past ages, however, that would not seem to have been the case:Consider that the seismosaur's neck might easily weigh three or four times what a large elephant weighs, and that the bone structure suggests he held his neck outwards and not upwards, with no supporting structure at all, and the curve of the neck goes the wrong way (from the point of view of support).Actually, there are two kinds of sauropods, i.e. the diplodocids like the seismosaur and the brachiosaurids like the ultrasaur and brontosaur, and the bone structure suggests the former held their necks outwards and the latter upwards. Recently, scientists have more or less agreed on the conclusion that the blood pressure requirements to get blood up to a head being held 30 or 40' off the ground would be impossible and that all sauropods, therefore, must have held their necks outwards.What is being ignored in that theory, of course, is torque. Suppose for a moment that the seismosaur's neck weighed 30,000 lbs, which seems conservative, that the center of gravity of the neck was 20' out from the shoulders, which also seems reasonable: you're talking about 600,000 foot lbs of torque, working against a neck which is not supported by any structure at all. In other words, you're requiring 600,000 foot pounds of torque to be held by flesh and bone.Now, the first time I noticed this, I asked myself, what in the normal world of experience would you associate with a torque figure somewhere between half a million and a million foot pounds.Not cars; I don't think there's anything in the average car torqued more than a couple of hundred foot pounds, if that (gland nuts). Head bolts on a typical VW are about 40 if memory serves. Firearms also had nothing to add to the story; the barrel receiver fit on a FAL rifle is about as high as anything I know of at about 120 foot lbs.I asked some of the people at Aberdeen who work on tanks what the highest torque used for anything on a tank or a tank-tow vehicle was and, again if memory serves, the answer was about 400 - 600 foot lbs. I called people at the shipyards in Baltimore and asked what sort of torque was used on the nuts which held propellers on large oceangoing ships and, again if memory serves, the numbers were from around 1000 - 1200 foot lbs or thereabouts.What I finally came up with as something in real life which would be ballpark for half a million to a million foot pounds of torque, and this is the only thing I managed to find, is the following:That's right: somewhere between about three hundred thousand and a million foot pounds of torque would be ballpark for the combined total maximum torque of all four of the engines on an Iowa class battleship.Picture having that turning on your neck all day long, 24/7.Me, I find it easier to believe that dinosaurs never experienced gravity the way we do.{Rescaled all photos to 100% width, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 04-18-2004][This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-18-2004]

The main problem: the wildebeast did not have a spiked tail to use as a weapon:

"As some of the meanings of the pictographs are not known, it is believed that the image in the lower right depicts a canoe carrying people across to the Rock. The larger image above the canoe figure is believed to be that of a Great Water Lynx, termed Mishipashoo in Ojibway. Native legends say that this water spirit inhabits large bodies of water, like Mazinaw Lake. Natives would offer tobacco to this spirit before embarking on a journey across such waters. The tobacco was offered with a prayer to appease this spirit with the hope that it would not whip up its great spiked tail and tip their canoe."

That's from the Bon Echo Park. Notice that the mishipishu glyphs in the picture are more like ideograms than the somewhat more realistic picture at Agawa Rock, but that the sawblade back is always a feature in mishipishu glyphs of any sort and, if anything, they're more pronounced in the ideograms.Vine DeLoria noted that Mishipishu was generally described as having red fur, a sawblade back, a catlike face, and a spiked tail which he used as a weapon. That's still a stegosaur.

{Rescaled all photos to 100% width, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}

​

[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 04-18-2004]

The whole thing looked fine until you fixed it.....

Your problem appears to be that you're looking at the wrong kind of architecture. Here's your seismosaur skeleton again:and here's a cantilever bridge:Hrm, how about that? High arched back supporting a neck cantilevered by tendons connecting it to the tail. Of course the seismosaur isn't an arch. That's only evidence for lesser gravity if, like the Romans, your architectural thinking is stuck in the Bronze Age.

It's still supported; the seismosaur's neck isn't. That doesn't strike me as complicated.