|
Post by ziro on Aug 24, 2008 5:21:32 GMT
Give poor Archaeoraptor some credit, it was able to fool Phil Currie, Stephen Czerkas, Xu Xing,and National Geographic after all ;D And I'm not even referring to the Microraptor gui fossil on eBay a few years ago, which looked exactly like the 'holotype' 'Microraptor gui' , except that the eBay specimen did not have four wings, or any feather impressions at all, curiously enough Now I'm not sure which of the two (or both) is fake ;D
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 24, 2008 5:56:32 GMT
Give poor Archaeoraptor some credit, it was able to fool Phil Currie, Stephen Czerkas, Xu Xing,and National Geographic after all ;D And I'm not even referring to the Microraptor gui fossil on eBay a few years ago, which looked exactly like the 'holotype' 'Microraptor gui' , except that the eBay specimen did not have four wings, or any feather impressions at all, curiously enough Now I'm not sure which of the two (or both) is fake ;D If it looked exactly like the holotype, it was probably a cast, without having replicated the feathers. Also, remember that not all the specimens from there preserve feathers, or all feathers. Even some Archaeopteryx specimens lack them.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Aug 24, 2008 6:45:23 GMT
Are you saying the Chinese don't produce tons of fake fossils per year? ONE EASILY DETECTED FAKE. That's all. Try Morocco for fakes (trilobites, but still). One fake?! Have you ever checked Ebay?
|
|
|
Post by [][][]cordylus[][][] on Aug 24, 2008 16:05:23 GMT
Give poor Archaeoraptor some credit, it was able to fool Phil Currie, Stephen Czerkas, Xu Xing,and National Geographic after all ;D And I'm not even referring to the Microraptor gui fossil on eBay a few years ago, which looked exactly like the 'holotype' 'Microraptor gui' , except that the eBay specimen did not have four wings, or any feather impressions at all, curiously enough Now I'm not sure which of the two (or both) is fake ;D Just because a microraptor fossil showed up without feathers doesn't mean it did not have them. The feathers probably rotted away or something before the dinosaur was fossilized. I think there is also an archaeopteryx fossil without feathers, but I could be wrong on that.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 24, 2008 18:08:15 GMT
*Sigh* and we are here again. Yo, pilty, I did wish you would come back, but really, if you are going to get offended when we provide information that proves your claims wrong, are you going to get upset and leave again ? As for everyone else. THERE ARE TONS OF FAKE AND COMPOSITE FOSSILS OUT THERE. Especially on Ebay. From all over the globe. Just look at some of the things people attempt to pass off as "dinosaur eggs", and what others buy thinking they just got a "great deal on a dinosaur egg" - and its nothing but a concretion. www.fossils-for-sale.com/fakes.htmUnder scrutiny, those would be detectable to a paleontologist, probably even to an experienced collector. To many a random ebay buyer ? Notsomuch, That is why they continue to sell. Race has little to do with any of it. Money on the other hand.... And yes, there is an Archeopteyx fossil without decent feather preservation. Look at the "Montauk Monster" for an example of how a carcass covered with a thick integument can, especially in an oceanic setting, become nothing more then glop with a skeleton.
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 24, 2008 18:13:16 GMT
^ What do you mean, archaeoraptor wasn't a hoax? Now that would indeed be news to me ;D
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 24, 2008 18:18:26 GMT
NO. That was replying to your comments about Microraptor.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Aug 24, 2008 20:52:10 GMT
Give poor Archaeoraptor some credit, it was able to fool Phil Currie, Stephen Czerkas, Xu Xing,and National Geographic after all ;D And I'm not even referring to the Microraptor gui fossil on eBay a few years ago, which looked exactly like the 'holotype' 'Microraptor gui' , except that the eBay specimen did not have four wings, or any feather impressions at all, curiously enough Now I'm not sure which of the two (or both) is fake ;D Archaeoraptor never fooled Phil Currie or anyone else as soon as they saw the specimens closely. They generally knew something wasn't right (in this case, two species of feathered dinosaurs, I believe). However, Czercas was counting on the specimen for his museum (and as support for his insane ideas) and fooling National Geographic isn't that hard--they are journalists, not researchers (plus, Czercas, may have withheld the information that the other researchers were giving him, specifically that the fossil was a fake). This is why the species was never described in any formal journal, only a popular magazine (that's all that NG is--just like how Prehistoric Times is a great magazine, but is no place for publishing 'research' >>cough<< David Peters >>cough<<) Please, when you want to make outrageous claims, make sure you have the facts straight. As for fossils not always having feathers--since Hesperornis doesn't always have feathers on its fossils (they are from this province, I've seen some of the fossils) does that mean that they didn't have feathers? That if a Hesperornis is found with feathers (unlikely) that it must be faked? Do you ever get tired of trotting out the same tired, indefensible lines on the same subject? I know I get tired feeling like I have to refute those same lines again and again (but I will until you perform the necessary research to support your claims.).
|
|
|
Post by ziro on Aug 24, 2008 22:24:39 GMT
Give poor Archaeoraptor some credit, it was able to fool Phil Currie, Stephen Czerkas, Xu Xing,and National Geographic after all ;D And I'm not even referring to the Microraptor gui fossil on eBay a few years ago, which looked exactly like the 'holotype' 'Microraptor gui' , except that the eBay specimen did not have four wings, or any feather impressions at all, curiously enough Now I'm not sure which of the two (or both) is fake ;D Archaeoraptor never fooled Phil Currie or anyone else as soon as they saw the specimens closely. They generally knew something wasn't right (in this case, two species of feathered dinosaurs, I believe). However, Czercas was counting on the specimen for his museum (and as support for his insane ideas) and fooling National Geographic isn't that hard--they are journalists, not researchers (plus, Czercas, may have withheld the information that the other researchers were giving him, specifically that the fossil was a fake). This is why the species was never described in any formal journal, only a popular magazine (that's all that NG is--just like how Prehistoric Times is a great magazine, but is no place for publishing 'research' >>cough<< David Peters >>cough<<) Please, when you want to make outrageous claims, make sure you have the facts straight. As for fossils not always having feathers--since Hesperornis doesn't always have feathers on its fossils (they are from this province, I've seen some of the fossils) does that mean that they didn't have feathers? That if a Hesperornis is found with feathers (unlikely) that it must be faked? Do you ever get tired of trotting out the same tired, indefensible lines on the same subject? I know I get tired feeling like I have to refute those same lines again and again (but I will until you perform the necessary research to support your claims.). Well, then why did Currie and Xu Xing agree to co-author the article erecting archaeoraptor, if they were so plagued by doubt in the first place? Is this not a case of success having many fathers, and failure being an orphan? And I like it how everything was dumped on the shoulders of Czerkas after the facts. Yeah, there we go, blame it all on the non-scientist! Oh, I did read many of the excuses trotted out by the 'paleontologists' after the fraud was exposed, on how they REALLY didn't have that much to do with the specimen anyway, blah blah blah. If you don't feel like answering my posts then don't. I have done the necessary research by the way, but since those articles were authored by Alan Feduccia and Theagarten Lingham Soliar and Storrs Olson and not by, say, Thomas Holtz or Mark Norell, citing those sources (which I have downloaded from the computer, so nobody can claim I am making them out of thin air) will only elicit the usual personal scorn and attacks very often coming from the dino-bird crowd. I knew a VERY long time ago, long before this recent hubbub about the 'tyrannosaur' proteins, that Mary Schweitzer's results on the 'blood vessels' and 'proteins' were indefensible and erroneous. That is because I do actual RESEARCH in SCIENTIFIC journals. Anybody on this forum can use Google as well as I can.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 24, 2008 22:58:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 24, 2008 23:08:34 GMT
*Sigh* and we are here again. As for everyone else. THERE ARE TONS OF FAKE AND COMPOSITE FOSSILS OUT THERE. Especially on Ebay. From all over the globe. Just look at some of the things people attempt to pass off as "dinosaur eggs", and what others buy thinking they just got a "great deal on a dinosaur egg" - and its nothing but a concretion. www.fossils-for-sale.com/fakes.htmMany museum have basements full of concretions donated by the public under the impression that they are eggs, and flint 'bones', and plenmty besides. The curators have to smile and accept the acquisition, then it's easier to keep than go through the red tape required to throw out the specimen ;D.
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Aug 24, 2008 23:13:57 GMT
I personally like to collect fossils, and I have one of those Mosasaur jaws (didn't pay much, though). I'd never buy something scientifically important, though, and my limit is a wolly mammoth tooth (only payed $26 for it, and its authentic! ) and a dinosaur egg.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 24, 2008 23:27:17 GMT
I personally like to collect fossils, and I have one of those Mosasaur jaws (didn't pay much, though). I'd never buy something scientifically important, though, and my limit is a wolly mammoth tooth (only payed $26 for it, and its authentic! ) and a dinosaur egg. You sure that egg isn't just a nodular concretion? ;D Another trick is to take an egg-shaped lump of clay, and then stick a mosaic of genuine shell fragments to it's surface. They can look quite convincing but like the mosasaur jaws they are 'authentic' in one sense but fake in another.
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Aug 24, 2008 23:31:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 24, 2008 23:39:03 GMT
uh oh! I'm not sure about them ;D
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 25, 2008 0:13:14 GMT
Many of those eggs for sale look to be legit to me. Things you are looking for are listed here. www.lowellcarhart.net/ebay/fake.htmlMy egg came from the above legit dealer, Lowell Carhart. Decent price, decent quality. There are alot of fakes out there, and even more composite eggs like dinotoyforum was talking about. There is nothing wrong with a nice composite egg with some good reconstruction. Unfortunately, many (if not most/all) of the legit eggs that make it on the market are generally scientifically of little value, even more so once separate from other eggs, "reconstructed", and lacking exacting locality data. This I would seriously question. www.indiana9fossils.com/Dinosaurs/Eggs/Mongolian/lg1.JPGThese look to be legit, many are probably partially composite. www.indiana9fossils.com/Dinosaurs/OviraptorSingleEggs.htmMuch like buying livestock, I would only buy expensive or "higher end" fossils from someone I knew and trusted. As for things like mammoth teeth and bones, they are very available as authentic here in the states at least. A trip to Florida and some diving can yield a lovely bunch of fossils to take home, and the collecting permit is pretty cheap. (here in my home state, collecting is legal without permit on public lands that are not nat parks/ect) I can commonly be found at road cuts, looking for more trilobites/brachiopods/crynoids and ferns depending on the site.
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 25, 2008 3:06:37 GMT
Well, then why did Currie and Xu Xing agree to co-author the article erecting archaeoraptor, if they were so plagued by doubt in the first place? Becuase somebody has to like, study it and find out if it's really fake or not? Would you rather them say "well I have a hunch it's fake, so let's just throw the d**n thing in the trash." Since when is Czerkas a non-scientist? Sloppy scientist, maybe... But you could say the same of Bakker. My offer still stands. Cites please. I don't see any evidence that you've read anything by those author in the past three years, when they've reversed almost all their major positions. Nothing is science is indefensible. But you need actual evidence to defend something. Your argument seems to be "Archaeoraptor was a hoax, so all the Liaoning fossils are under suspicion." You're right, they are. That's why they get studied by scientists. You keep mentioning Feddicua et al, but they don't think the fossils are hoaxes either. Martin and friends think some are collagen (the protofeathers of Dilong and Sinosauropteryx) and some are real feathers on birds. They think Microraptor is a bird and not a dinosaur, and they also think this about Deinonychus. But surely you know that if you have all their papers downloaded from Google.
|
|