[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Dinosaur Hoaxes

The most recent that comes to mind (besides Archaeoraptor) would be the 
_Thescolosaurus_ "heart." Current status is that this was indeed a concretion. 
While it was always controversial, it did get published and had its fair share 
of believers.



"I am impressed by the fact that we know less about many modern [reptile] types 
than we do of many fossil groups." - Alfred S. Romer

----- Original Message -----
> From: "john-schneiderman@cox.net" <john-schneiderman@cox.net>
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Cc: 
> Sent: Friday, 21 October 2011 6:38 PM
> Subject: Dinosaur Hoaxes
> What are the top 10 Dinosaur Hoaxes, Frauds, Chimeras, Forgeries, Modified 
> remains, or Misidentifications?
> I'm reminded of:
> Archaeopteryx lithographica [considered a hoax from time to time but proven 
> not 
> to be]
> Archaeoraptor liaoningensis [construct]
> Irritator challengeri [modified remains]
> Ultrasauros macintoshi [chimera]
> Brontosaurus giganteus
> dinosaur eggs [natural concretions]
> Steer clear of the Dinosaur/Human coexistence tracks, Dinosaur Figurines, 
> Cave 
> paintings and Cryptid sightings and photos. I'm interested in those 
> dinosaurs that have made it into scientific publication as valid but later 
> discovered to be fraudulent or a hoax.
> References:
> http://www.jpaleontologicaltechniques.org/pasta3/JPT%20N2/Pdf/JPT_n002_Jul.pdf
> http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
> http://www.newanimal.org/dinosaurs.htm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/1059825.stm ; [faked icthyosaur]
> http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/arthur-coggeshall-and-star-spangled-dinosaur