Dinosaurs and the reduced felt effect of gravity

One point I'd like to make overwhelmingly clear from the outset.When something doesn't work, I do not stick with it. When an opponent such as Wayne Throop can provide a coercive demonstration that I have been looking at something the wrong way, I look for other explanations.The idea of a "reduced felt effect" of gravity caused by the tidal pull of an antique cosmic alignment has been jetissoned. The two remaining possibilities are basically that the mass of the Earth has increased (the expanding Earth theories I mentioned), or that gravity itself on the Earth's surface has somehow actually changed, for some other reason.My final choice in this business is item three, i.e. that gravity itself has changed. To my knowledge, nobody has a perfect and exact reason and explanation at this point in time, but the basic parameters are known.

One thing you might expect to find would be carved stone columns too heavy to be moved by any modern, much less any ancient technology (assuming present gravity of course):Look closely at the picture. The tiny thing on top of the column stone is a human sitting on it. This is near the temple of Jupiter in Baalbek Lebanon. Bechtel and the US Army Corps of Engineers have flatly stated that no modern technology could move that stone. In other words, you could chain everything the military has with engines, wheels, or treads to the thing and all pull at once, and it wouldn't budge.

The stone is apparently ready to be snapped off at one end and used. In other words, they had the thing ready to go, and then a war or some other circumstance beyone their control changed their plans.The only other thing which is possible to believe is that those guys did all the work necessary to prepare that stone, which is considerable, and then determined something like

"Hey, guys, you know, this fricking stone is about a hundred times heavier than we have any chance of moving. GOLLY ARE WE EVER STUPID to have done all this work for nothing!!!

Somehow or other, that simply isn't believable, at least not to me.

> ... no problem for romans...Sorry, I'd simply prefer to take the Army and Bechtel's word over yours on that one.

Posts: 645

...Didn't I also read that the originator of this novel assertion also ....contends that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaneous? Obviously this means that it is inconsistent with the conventional geological timeframes.

That column stone does not APPEAR to have been made by dinosaurs. That says that the gravitational attenuation which allowed the larger dinosaurs to live persisted into well within the age of man, which is one more piece of evidence involving dinosaur antiquity. That there were leftover dinosaurs well into the age of man appears certain at this point, from petroglyphs and other iconographic evidence, and the Ica stones show numerous dinosaur types so that you assume that the main age of dinosaurs could not possibly be more than a few tens of thousands of years back.That of course is fatal to the time frames required for evolution.I cannot easily picture humans living around the more dangerous kinds of dinosaurs without sophisticated weaponry, and I'd guess that most of the raptors were gone before man arrived on the planet. That's JUST a guess of course.>So, according to the Holden view of the universe:
>how old is the universe?
>how old is the earth?The universe I would assume at this point is eternal, and has no beginning or end. The big bang idea is pretty much dead.The Earth, I would guess, is somewhere between a hundred thousand and a million years old, again that is just a guess. We have one example in our system (Venus) of a planet which is ballpark for the sort of age which Bishop Usher derived from biblical chronologies and, since Mars and our Earth do not look like that or have 900 degree surface temperatures, I assume they are significantly older.You can do your own web searches for the various problems with radiometric dating schemes. I'm not really enough of an expert on that sort of topic to feel good about debating it. There are, of course, lots of problems with such schemes and they typically rest on uniformitarian assumptions.The other questions I don't have any real answers for.Another fairly new item on bearfabrique involves some of the images which have been coming back from the Spirit probes, and these are snapshots taken from the 20 - 40 mb tif images which allow panning and zooming to detail which the jpgs don't.It now seems irrefutable that Mars was inhabited prior to the great catastrophes and establishment of the present order of the system. Again this sort of thing crushes paradigms and nobody is saying much about it for that reason.

The site which had that info on it appears to have died of old age; I'll attempt to find another source for it.

I was originally asked for evidence more recent than dinosaurs of a change in gravity. The Baalbek stones are one piece of such evidence, there are others.We all know how elephants move in our present world, present gravity. They keep their legs straight underneath themselves and move in a stiff-legged walk. They cannot jump and they certainly can't gallop. Thus, we do not observe African or Asian artists picturing them stretched out in full gallop, because they've never seen that.Nonetheless, pleistocene artists used to picture mammoths stretched out in full gallop:That, of course, isn't proof positive of anything in and of itself, nonetheless it's another piece of a big picture view.

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.

> 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.

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.....

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