[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaur Hoaxes
Hm, I wouldn't be too harsh on the "heart". For one thing, the
concretion wasn't there for nothing: the high amount of iron from the
large amount of well-bloodied muscle triggered it. And yes, the
overall shape did have a very tempting form.
Dr. Heinrich Mallison
Museum für Naturkunde - Leibniz-Institut
für Evolutions- und Biodiversitätsforschung
an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Office phone: +49 (0)30 2093 8764
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Gaius Julius Caeser
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Jura <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> 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
>> 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,
>> 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.
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/1059825.stm ; [faked icthyosaur]