Dinosaur Hoax - Dinosaurs Never Existed!

Persons who dedicate themselves to the enrichment of knowledge and discovery can study the angles and alignments of fossilized nibs in dried mud embankments to help describe the lifeforms from the pre-historic world. They dig through old piles of crap all day.

And then, they get to name the creatures that they have found.

Meet the Skybalonyx Skapter -- yes, Sky-balony-x skapter. Sky, as in pulled out of thin air; balony, as in potted meat by-products rolled and sliced; and X, the letter that marks the spot.

Skybalonyx Skapter is said to be something like a mole-rat or an anteater.

Perhaps it was a weasel.

https://apnews.com/article/arizona-animals-forests-parks-national-parks-8a68960828fe07799664aa65fcb197f1

In Dubay’s book he says that out of the 136 species of dinosaurs they described only 32 are presently valid. I’m curious as to the source of this claim.

What's the book title and what page is the claim on

stjohnofthe88keys wrote:What's the book title and what page is the claim on

The Flat Earth Conspiracy page 203

https://www.deviantart.com/leptoceratops/journal/Dinosaurs-Never-Existed-A-Debunking-Part-1-678277522

https://www.deviantart.com/leptoceratops/journal/Dinosaurs-Never-Existed-A-Debunking-Part-3-679583789


https://www.deviantart.com/leptoceratops/journal/Dinosaurs-Never-Existed-A-Debunking-Part-4-686082883

Addish wrote:https://www.deviantart.com/leptoceratops/journal/Dinosaurs-Never-Existed-A-Debunking-Part-1-678277522

https://www.deviantart.com/leptoceratops/journal/Dinosaurs-Never-Existed-A-Debunking-Part-3-679583789


https://www.deviantart.com/leptoceratops/journal/Dinosaurs-Never-Existed-A-Debunking-Part-4-686082883

Gosh it reads like a terrible Snopes article.

tycho_brahe wrote:

Addish wrote:https://www.deviantart.com/leptoceratops/journal/Dinosaurs-Never-Existed-A-Debunking-Part-1-678277522

https://www.deviantart.com/leptoceratops/journal/Dinosaurs-Never-Existed-A-Debunking-Part-3-679583789


https://www.deviantart.com/leptoceratops/journal/Dinosaurs-Never-Existed-A-Debunking-Part-4-686082883

Gosh it reads like a terrible Snopes article.

Ha ha! Someone said something that upset his dinosaur obsession left over from childhood!
You could replace the words relating to dinosaur with words relating to Santa Claus and it sounds like a child that still believes in Santa, defending his beloved Santa..
(I got that alot as a child figuring out Santa wasn't real at 5)

Do you have any rebuttals of substance to give here though?

Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction?



In 2014 when I published my popular article and video "Dinosaurs Never Existed," it was very difficult to find any good information on the subject, but two sources I found and referenced were David Wozney's article "Dinosaurs: Science or Science Fiction?" and Robbin Koeffed's article "The Dinosaurs Never Existed." Now in 2022 it is no easier to find good information on this subject and even those two sources have been all but scrubbed from the internet. Robbin Koeffed's article and his entire GVENews website have since been deleted and mysteriously neither the article or his site are even recognized by the Archive.org Wayback Machine. If anyone is able to find that piece in its entirety please send it to me. David Wozney's original article and website have also mysteriously been deleted but I was able to find a saved copy and am making this video to preserve it for posterity. If anyone watching this has not already seen my documentary "Evolution and Dinosaurs Debunked," please stop this video and watch that one first here:



Note: The author of the top video was a literalist Christian and young-Earth creationist. I do not personally hold these beliefs but wanted to present the article in its entirety regardless.

The Dinosaurs Never Existed:



This video will reveal one of the greatest hoaxes in human history. Thanks to half a dozen of my computer saavy supporters helping scour the internet archive, we have now found and can present Robbin Koefoed's article "The Dinosaurs Never Existed," from his deleted GVENews website.

I grew up farming and ranching from the Great lakes to the Mississippi valley.

One thing we all had in common was that we never called the Smithsonian or the Feds when certain items were discovered. They will come to your house to this very day and steal everything. Ask the idiots who posted on FB.

What we all find are tablets and artifacts from ancient Egypt, China, Viking, Native Americans, and more. Not once have we found a dinosaur bone, but plenty of mastodons, nothing else. Mostly near ancient copper mines, rivers, and lakes.

For me personally, this solidifies the FE theory. The ancients were very mobile. This gives credence to my ancestors who worked on several world fairs, that our pre-history is a lot more recent than we are told it is.

Dinosaurs was a hard one for me to let go of for some reason. I use to watch seminars about the Ica stones, and all kinds of other so called ancient artwork which clearly depict them . Vases from Egypt, little figurines in Mexico, mummies in Peru and Ecuador with dinosaurs on their burial shawls. At the same time it's clear that what they show us in museums is NOT good evidence of dinosaurs existing. It's a topic I'm fascinated with, and would be grateful for any discussion on it.

Regarding the Ica Stones:

Admin wrote:Regarding the Ica Stones:

Only thing is he seems to think dino's really existed. I didn't watch it all.

I've seen that video many times over the years, and it can be summed up like this. "We know these stones are hoaxes because the dinosaurs on them don't have feathers". As if paleontologist have proven not only that dinosaurs existed, but that they certainly had feathers. It's just interesting to me.

Also, they did get a guy to admit that he was the one that carved them. However he later said that he just admitted it because they paid him, and threatened him with jail if he didn't, because he had sold some of them which is illegal in Peru.

The stones have a bunch of patina on them too, which suggests they are quite old, but he claimed he did that by baking them in cow dung.

It seems unlikely to me that one man carved thousands of these things with different styles, and baked them all in poop to give them an ancient look.

At the same time I've seen compelling videos by a respected engineer who makes good points that the very mechanics of many of the dinosaurs are just impossible. And of course the bone wars is pretty much proof that they were making fakes out of any bones they could find back in the 1800s.

And of course nothing can possibly be evidence for a ball earth with oceans stuck to the bottom of it spinning and shooting through infinite space.

Hey everyone, do you have any pdf books to recomend to me that expose the dinossaurs hoax? I have tried to buy or find the pdf of the books: "Dinossaurs Science or Science Fiction" and "Dinossaurs never existed" but without sucess... Really difficult to find this kind of material

hey all, just finished “On the Origin of Species” by C. Darwin, & did notice the lack of mention of dinosaurs… he discussed fossils, the incompleteness & minuscularity of our knowledge on these matters, mastodons & mammoths… he mentioned plated armadillos… zero dinosaurs

on that subject, i’m working through “The Voyage of the Beagle,” which is good, & a different beast

[i actually like Darwin’s writing/style, & noticed he’s employed by Royal Society-types; so…]

in OTOOS he uses “globe” when describing Earth, & also postulates Pangea, common ancestors, etc.

hard to fault him on his generous work toward taxonomy, which admittedly begs for the types of insight prevalent in the former work: that being proper classification lending itself to accurate predictions & historicity

RileySlowWave wrote:hey all, just finished “On the Origin of Species” by C. Darwin, & did notice the lack of mention of dinosaurs… he discussed fossils, the incompleteness & minuscularity of our knowledge on these matters, mastodons & mammoths… he mentioned plated armadillos… zero dinosaurs

on that subject, i’m working through “The Voyage of the Beagle,” which is good, & a different beast

[i actually like Darwin’s writing/style, & noticed he’s employed by Royal Society-types; so…]

in OTOOS he uses “globe” when describing Earth, & also postulates Pangea, common ancestors, etc.

hard to fault him on his generous work toward taxonomy, which admittedly begs for the types of insight prevalent in the former work: that being proper classification lending itself to accurate predictions & historicity

And?

nowhereelsetogo wrote:

RileySlowWave wrote:hey all, just finished “On the Origin of Species” by C. Darwin, & did notice the lack of mention of dinosaurs… he discussed fossils, the incompleteness & minuscularity of our knowledge on these matters, mastodons & mammoths… he mentioned plated armadillos… zero dinosaurs

on that subject, i’m working through “The Voyage of the Beagle,” which is good, & a different beast

[i actually like Darwin’s writing/style, & noticed he’s employed by Royal Society-types; so…]

in OTOOS he uses “globe” when describing Earth, & also postulates Pangea, common ancestors, etc.

hard to fault him on his generous work toward taxonomy, which admittedly begs for the types of insight prevalent in the former work: that being proper classification lending itself to accurate predictions & historicity

And?

And, hehehe

i’d recommend Darwin as a good read

“The Voyage of the Beagle” is adventurous & more accessible, & asserts some fascinating ideas: describing “savages” of various sorts; especially in contrast to those civilized [like, remarking how inhabitants of a particular southern island live on the dirt & cannibalize to avoid starvation; seem plainly dumb; & have an ability to mimic accurately the speech of foreigners [hardly understanding tho], as compared to elsewhere ‘primitive/savage’ abilities to, for instance, mimic the gait of another person; accurately enough to be surmised]

he talks about the evidence of elephant [& other species’] migrations throughout Americas, & conjectures that the terrain seems to have somehow choked off a bunch of varieties, leaving it, for instance North America, as having noticeably fewer types of XYZ

the closest thing to a dino he mentions is a 6-8 ft quadruped [i think armadillo-like], & mostly remarks on horses, mastodons, crustaceans…

added pluses, this book has officially kindled my interest in Royal Navy/books & explorer journals [thinking: Cook, Drake, Magellan…]

the more you know

adding w/ edit: there are numerous mentions of people he encounters asking whether the sun & heavens are moving or if we are... they're baffled by heliocentrism

RileySlowWave wrote:

nowhereelsetogo wrote:

RileySlowWave wrote:hey all, just finished “On the Origin of Species” by C. Darwin, & did notice the lack of mention of dinosaurs… he discussed fossils, the incompleteness & minuscularity of our knowledge on these matters, mastodons & mammoths… he mentioned plated armadillos… zero dinosaurs

on that subject, i’m working through “The Voyage of the Beagle,” which is good, & a different beast

[i actually like Darwin’s writing/style, & noticed he’s employed by Royal Society-types; so…]

in OTOOS he uses “globe” when describing Earth, & also postulates Pangea, common ancestors, etc.

hard to fault him on his generous work toward taxonomy, which admittedly begs for the types of insight prevalent in the former work: that being proper classification lending itself to accurate predictions & historicity

And?

And, hehehe

i’d recommend Darwin as a good read

“The Voyage of the Beagle” is adventurous & more accessible, & asserts some fascinating ideas: describing “savages” of various sorts; especially in contrast to those civilized [like, remarking how inhabitants of a particular southern island live on the dirt & cannibalize to avoid starvation; seem plainly dumb; & have an ability to mimic accurately the speech of foreigners [hardly understanding tho], as compared to elsewhere ‘primitive/savage’ abilities to, for instance, mimic the gait of another person; accurately enough to be surmised]

he talks about the evidence of elephant [& other species’] migrations throughout Americas, & conjectures that the terrain seems to have somehow choked off a bunch of varieties, leaving it, for instance North America, as having noticeably fewer types of XYZ

the closest thing to a dino he mentions is a 6-8 ft quadruped [i think armadillo-like], & mostly remarks on horses, mastodons, crustaceans…

added pluses, this book has officially kindled my interest in Royal Navy/books & explorer journals [thinking: Cook, Drake, Magellan…]

the more you know

adding w/ edit: there are numerous mentions of people he encounters asking whether the sun & heavens are moving or if we are... they're baffled by heliocentrism

quick little addendum on this:

having finished “The Voyage of the Beagle,” & on this subject of the voracity & evidence for dinosaurs, i noticed that Darwin himself says little if anything on their existence [he does mention large sharks & plenty of fossils, although hardly any reptiles of the sort we now call “dinosaurs” — his are mostly as i’ve previously said: armadillos, mastodons, crustaceans, horses…]

however, the last chapter has an essay by his then Captain Robert FitzRoy, who DOES talk about what we’d infer to be dinosaurs; saying that they were being more or less then discovered [his language was different than Darwin’s, & the essay itself was on evidence for the biblical deluge, which i believe he favored [story goes: he married a religious woman soon before writing this, & was ‘converted…’]]

anyhow, FitzRoy also says the diameter of the globe is 8,000 miles…

i took his portion to be detractive or even distractive from the much better greater work

point being: i’ve yet to read anything by Darwin himself that convinces me of their existence, although attached to his book is an essay that DOES claim evidence for them [he mentions dragons, griffins, & other mythical creatures in the same breath, so…]

chuckling, guess i should next read something by K. Hamm to really get the neurons swimming, lol

Darwins theory of evolution, relying on random mutation over great time spans, is required to shore up the fantasy of the heliocentric model .
     
Evolution of species was put forward many years before as a theory well before Darwin and his voyage.

Lamarckism , as it was known , evolution over short time periods - one generation to the next , driven by necessity rather than random mutation. Evolution of the species by will, or collective will of the species. No random mutation required . No mythical billions of years needed.

Makes much more sense than Darwins theory who was really just laying one of the foundations for the jesuit big bang bollox.

Dinosaurs are for brainwashing purposes.

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:Darwins theory of evolution, relying on random mutation over great time spans, is required to shore up the fantasy of the heliocentric model .
     
Evolution of species was put forward many years before as a theory well before Darwin and his voyage.

Lamarckism , as it was known , evolution over short time periods - one generation to the next , driven by necessity rather than random mutation. Evolution of the species by will, or collective will of the species. No random mutation required . No mythical billions of years needed.

Makes much more sense than Darwins theory who was really just laying one of the foundations for the jesuit big bang bollox.

Dinosaurs are for brainwashing purposes.

good reply, although please, let’s discuss:

i’ve heard of Lamarckism [isms, hehehe] & gave it a quick study before replying here [i see at least in part the notion that externally derived/lived traits [such as strong arms for blacksmiths, dexterous fingers for musicians, perhaps a taste for spicy foods(??)] can apparently, according to Lamarck, be transferred to direct offspring] — wait this is in serious question/contention

i’m favoring Darwin’s concept moreso, figuring it somewhat obvious that some traits are passed on to children while others appear to be random — actually, his books were logical & frank; hardly relying on great reaches of mind — he even uses phrases like, “One hand has surely worked throughout the universe.”

maybe we’re missing each other’s points: Darwin said 0 things about dinosaurs in the 2 [famous] books listed above, & describes things pretty much as they are [taken into account like/as a naturalist]

i will say: it’s a fair question to scrutinize the concept of Big Bang, common ancestors; even the flood/deluge; & i’m all in favor of reading [even primary sources] w/ a huge grain of salt

furthermore, i agree dinosaurs appear to be dubious [caught JP: The Lost World on TV a couple days ago & thought of the notion that if they’re selling fear, they’re probably lying] 🦖 RUN

so after all that; having enjoyed Darwin & moving further into books of a similar type, is there a particular work by Lamarck or others that is must-read(?)

RileySlowWave wrote:

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:Darwins theory of evolution, relying on random mutation over great time spans, is required to shore up the fantasy of the heliocentric model .
     
Evolution of species was put forward many years before as a theory well before Darwin and his voyage.

Lamarckism , as it was known , evolution over short time periods - one generation to the next , driven by necessity rather than random mutation. Evolution of the species by will, or collective will of the species. No random mutation required . No mythical billions of years needed.

Makes much more sense than Darwins theory who was really just laying one of the foundations for the jesuit big bang bollox.

Dinosaurs are for brainwashing purposes.

good reply, although please, let’s discuss:

i’ve heard of Lamarckism [isms, hehehe] & gave it a quick study before replying here [i see at least in part the notion that externally derived/lived traits [such as strong arms for blacksmiths, dexterous fingers for musicians, perhaps a taste for spicy foods(??)] can apparently, according to Lamarck, be transferred to direct offspring] — wait this is in serious question/contention

i’m favoring Darwin’s concept moreso, figuring it somewhat obvious that some traits are passed on to children while others appear to be random — actually, his books were logical & frank; hardly relying on great reaches of mind — he even uses phrases like, “One hand has surely worked throughout the universe.”

maybe we’re missing each other’s points: Darwin said 0 things about dinosaurs in the 2 [famous] books listed above, & describes things pretty much as they are [taken into account like/as a naturalist]

i will say: it’s a fair question to scrutinize the concept of Big Bang, common ancestors; even the flood/deluge; & i’m all in favor of reading [even primary sources] w/ a huge grain of salt

furthermore, i agree dinosaurs appear to be dubious [caught JP: The Lost World on TV a couple days ago & thought of the notion that if they’re selling fear, they’re probably lying] 🦖 RUN

so after all that; having enjoyed Darwin & moving further into books of a similar type, is there a particular work by Lamarck or others that is must-read(?)

just (re)watched this, which is comically relevant:



i looked into Lamarck books to read, & would go w/ "Zoological Philosophy," although the copy on Amazon is currently $61 so i'll wait a bit...

RileySlowWave wrote:

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:Darwins theory of evolution, relying on random mutation over great time spans, is required to shore up the fantasy of the heliocentric model .
     
Evolution of species was put forward many years before as a theory well before Darwin and his voyage.

Lamarckism , as it was known , evolution over short time periods - one generation to the next , driven by necessity rather than random mutation. Evolution of the species by will, or collective will of the species. No random mutation required . No mythical billions of years needed.

Makes much more sense than Darwins theory who was really just laying one of the foundations for the jesuit big bang bollox.

Dinosaurs are for brainwashing purposes.

good reply, although please, let’s discuss:

i’ve heard of Lamarckism [isms, hehehe] & gave it a quick study before replying here [i see at least in part the notion that externally derived/lived traits [such as strong arms for blacksmiths, dexterous fingers for musicians, perhaps a taste for spicy foods(??)] can apparently, according to Lamarck, be transferred to direct offspring] — wait this is in serious question/contention

i’m favoring Darwin’s concept moreso, figuring it somewhat obvious that some traits are passed on to children while others appear to be random — actually, his books were logical & frank; hardly relying on great reaches of mind — he even uses phrases like, “One hand has surely worked throughout the universe.”

maybe we’re missing each other’s points: Darwin said 0 things about dinosaurs in the 2 [famous] books listed above, & describes things pretty much as they are [taken into account like/as a naturalist]

i will say: it’s a fair question to scrutinize the concept of Big Bang, common ancestors; even the flood/deluge; & i’m all in favor of reading [even primary sources] w/ a huge grain of salt

furthermore, i agree dinosaurs appear to be dubious [caught JP: The Lost World on TV a couple days ago & thought of the notion that if they’re selling fear, they’re probably lying] 🦖 RUN

so after all that; having enjoyed Darwin & moving further into books of a similar type, is there a particular work by Lamarck or others that is must-read(?)

40yrs ago we were taught about Lamarckian evolution as a prelude to Darwins ideas . Your comments on Lamarcks ideas seem wakopedia like.

Going onto Darwin , I do recall his studies of some small birds of the same species living in an island group . Results being different beaks evolving for different berries and nuts according to island habitat differentiation.

Can't recall all the details but I queried the boffin giving the lecture that this scenario surely comes under Lamarckian evolution, change through necessity rather than random mutation.  

My point is that dinosaurs are a hoax , in my opinion , designed to back up the mainstream pseudoscientific bull that we are fed.

Lamarckism leads one to believe that Tyrannosaurus Rex evolved into a chicken to enable Mcdonalds and KFC to flourish . Darwin would say that's just survival of the fattest.

Good day sir .

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:

RileySlowWave wrote:

TyrannicalSawdustRex wrote:Darwins theory of evolution, relying on random mutation over great time spans, is required to shore up the fantasy of the heliocentric model .
     
Evolution of species was put forward many years before as a theory well before Darwin and his voyage.

Lamarckism , as it was known , evolution over short time periods - one generation to the next , driven by necessity rather than random mutation. Evolution of the species by will, or collective will of the species. No random mutation required . No mythical billions of years needed.

Makes much more sense than Darwins theory who was really just laying one of the foundations for the jesuit big bang bollox.

Dinosaurs are for brainwashing purposes.

good reply, although please, let’s discuss:

i’ve heard of Lamarckism [isms, hehehe] & gave it a quick study before replying here [i see at least in part the notion that externally derived/lived traits [such as strong arms for blacksmiths, dexterous fingers for musicians, perhaps a taste for spicy foods(??)] can apparently, according to Lamarck, be transferred to direct offspring] — wait this is in serious question/contention

i’m favoring Darwin’s concept moreso, figuring it somewhat obvious that some traits are passed on to children while others appear to be random — actually, his books were logical & frank; hardly relying on great reaches of mind — he even uses phrases like, “One hand has surely worked throughout the universe.”

maybe we’re missing each other’s points: Darwin said 0 things about dinosaurs in the 2 [famous] books listed above, & describes things pretty much as they are [taken into account like/as a naturalist]

i will say: it’s a fair question to scrutinize the concept of Big Bang, common ancestors; even the flood/deluge; & i’m all in favor of reading [even primary sources] w/ a huge grain of salt

furthermore, i agree dinosaurs appear to be dubious [caught JP: The Lost World on TV a couple days ago & thought of the notion that if they’re selling fear, they’re probably lying] 🦖 RUN

so after all that; having enjoyed Darwin & moving further into books of a similar type, is there a particular work by Lamarck or others that is must-read(?)

40yrs ago we were taught about Lamarckian evolution as a prelude to Darwins ideas . Your comments on Lamarcks ideas seem wakopedia like.

Going onto Darwin , I do recall his studies of some small birds of the same species living in an island group . Results being different beaks evolving for different berries and nuts according to island habitat differentiation.

Can't recall all the details but I queried the boffin giving the lecture that this scenario surely comes under Lamarckian evolution, change through necessity rather than random mutation.  

My point is that dinosaurs are a hoax , in my opinion , designed to back up the mainstream pseudoscientific bull that we are fed.

Lamarckism leads one to believe that Tyrannosaurus Rex evolved into a chicken to enable Mcdonalds and KFC to flourish . Darwin would say that's just survival of the fattest.

Good day sir .

i’m w/ ya dinosaurs being a hoax, & can generalize & say there’s lots to know/learn about evolution & its mechanisms

i breezed through R. Dawkins’ (audio)book “The River out of Eden,” & came away w/ so little from it the only thing that stuck was analogizing DNA as digital, even compared to computers — saying it functions like the ‘rivers of numbers’ in the airwaves being decoded properly by devices [genes, etc.] receptive [like a cellphone] — in that way preserving the high-fidelity of copies [w/ variation, hehehe]

i’m inclined to review Dawkins’ work [i’ve read a handful of his books] in light of {{{all this new information & keener scrutinization tools}}}

sometimes there’s some decent info mixed in w/ the BS

quickly, on Darwin, i recall the finch beak lessons from college, & figure they must be in some other book/work of his than OTOOS or TVOTB — or i just totally missed that section [plausible]

was ultimately sharing that his books were interesting & mute on the dino subject [until FitzRoy’s essay at the end]

i’m adding: i started up a Great Courses lecture/audiobook called “The Evidence for Modern Physics,” which is like a gift of inversion — i’m sort of assuming reality is close to opposite on the subjects presented, so far being:

“Do you believe it atoms?” [i stopped]
“Peering inside protons & neutrons” [hmmm]
“Seeing light as wave & particle” [ummm]
“The paradox of quantum entanglement” [uhhh]
“How we know special relativity is real” [orrr]
“Why the speed of light is the speed limit” [ehhh]
…

SHOUTOUT BOOKS SHOUTOUT KNOWLEDGE/WISDOM