Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
America's first climate change refugees are preparing to leave an island that will disappear under t
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TerryMiller" data-source="post: 3102383" data-attributes="member: 7900"><p>Yes, I've seen that report, which by the way was produced by two people who examined the Kachina Bridge dinosaur with binoculars. Others have actually stood on a ladder up to the ledge where the petroglyph is located and noted that there are "pecking indentions" in the surface to indicate that it isn't a mud stain.</p><p></p><p>Here is Senter and Cole's (the "scientists" who "debunked" the image) report:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://palaeo-electronica.org/2011_1/236/index.html" target="_blank">Dinosaur Petroglyphs at Kachina Bridge Site</a></p><p></p><p>Phil Senter. Department of Natural Sciences, Fayetteville State University, 1200 Murchison Road, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301, USA </p><p>Sally Cole, archaeological consultant and author, Dolores, Colorado, USA (can be contacted via Phil Senter).</p><p></p><p>The author's comments as to their methods, stating how they examined the petroglyph.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://palaeo-electronica.org/2011_1/236/methods.htm" target="_blank">Methods</a></p><p></p><p>"The hypothesis that a given petroglyph depicts a dinosaur makes four predictions: (1) the image is a single image, not a composite of separate images, (2) it depicts an animal, (3) its features cannot be reconciled with an interpretation that it depicts a member of the non-dinosaurian local fauna that was contemporaneous with its maker(s), (4) its features depict a specific, identifiable dinosaur, and (5) it is entirely human-made.</p><p></p><p>To test these predictions the four alleged dinosaur depictions <u><strong>were examined with the naked eye and with the aid of binoculars and telephoto lenses.</strong></u> Observations were made while the images were illuminated by direct and indirect sunlight and when they were in shadow. Accurate documentation and analysis of petroglyphs requires this level of observation and recording insofar as visibility varies considerably under changing light conditions, and it may be difficult if not impossible to perceive differences between natural and man-made manipulations of sandstone surfaces."</p><p></p><p>Other statements by Senter and Cole stated that the image was hard to get to with a ladder, thus the use of binoculars and telephoto lenses. However, others that have examined the image have been able to get to the image with the use of lightweight, telescoping ladders.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TerryMiller, post: 3102383, member: 7900"] Yes, I've seen that report, which by the way was produced by two people who examined the Kachina Bridge dinosaur with binoculars. Others have actually stood on a ladder up to the ledge where the petroglyph is located and noted that there are "pecking indentions" in the surface to indicate that it isn't a mud stain. Here is Senter and Cole's (the "scientists" who "debunked" the image) report: [URL='http://palaeo-electronica.org/2011_1/236/index.html']Dinosaur Petroglyphs at Kachina Bridge Site[/URL] Phil Senter. Department of Natural Sciences, Fayetteville State University, 1200 Murchison Road, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301, USA Sally Cole, archaeological consultant and author, Dolores, Colorado, USA (can be contacted via Phil Senter). The author's comments as to their methods, stating how they examined the petroglyph. [URL='http://palaeo-electronica.org/2011_1/236/methods.htm']Methods[/URL] "The hypothesis that a given petroglyph depicts a dinosaur makes four predictions: (1) the image is a single image, not a composite of separate images, (2) it depicts an animal, (3) its features cannot be reconciled with an interpretation that it depicts a member of the non-dinosaurian local fauna that was contemporaneous with its maker(s), (4) its features depict a specific, identifiable dinosaur, and (5) it is entirely human-made. To test these predictions the four alleged dinosaur depictions [U][B]were examined with the naked eye and with the aid of binoculars and telephoto lenses.[/B][/U] Observations were made while the images were illuminated by direct and indirect sunlight and when they were in shadow. Accurate documentation and analysis of petroglyphs requires this level of observation and recording insofar as visibility varies considerably under changing light conditions, and it may be difficult if not impossible to perceive differences between natural and man-made manipulations of sandstone surfaces." Other statements by Senter and Cole stated that the image was hard to get to with a ladder, thus the use of binoculars and telephoto lenses. However, others that have examined the image have been able to get to the image with the use of lightweight, telescoping ladders. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
America's first climate change refugees are preparing to leave an island that will disappear under t
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom