Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Dante's Inferno

Archeoraptor

22 posts in this topic

Hello evryone I've just recently watched a documentry concerning the Archeraptor (fake) fossil found in china. At the end of the documentry it stated that the two body parts that had made up the fake were in fact from unknown species. The hind legs were like a dinosaur complete with long tail but had a small bird like pelvis and the torso part was from a bird like creature that had claws on the wings and teeth in its beak. As I am quite new to this forum I'm not sure if the topic has been discussed what I'm actually interested in is have there been any further research or documentaion released concerning the two separate species. If anyone could help me it would be greatly appreciated :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

It was part bird fossil part raptor fossil. A complete fake which embarresssed Nat Geo and shows the losing battle for finding fossils of that calibre. They must be desperate to stoop that low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was part bird fossil part raptor fossil. A complete fake which embarresssed Nat Geo and shows the losing battle for finding fossils of that calibre. They must be desperate to stoop that low.

Thanks I think the same to however in the dicumentry it did state that the bird section had starnge caricturistics teeth in beak and claws on the end of tits wings how was that explained do you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, not sure about that...I did have an article on it in one of my posts but it was like last year...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks I think the same to however in the dicumentry it did state that the bird section had starnge caricturistics teeth in beak and claws on the end of tits wings how was that explained do you know?

You are quite correct. The archeoraptor fooled many people due a part of it actually being from a formerly unknown protoavis. If it had been a complete fake, it would have been rather easily detected, as scientists had\ve learned to be somewhat wary of farmers who come in off the field with a relatively intact fossil, as it is, it took four months for the skeptics (not everyone was convinced of its authenticity) to find that it had been glued together. What followed was a rather embarrassing example of human nature. So many people had invested so much of their reputation into this find that the moment it was discovered to be fake, the backlash was brutal. The National Geographic article you are likely referring to, in particular, was most harsh, with barely a line mentioning the part of the bird that was unknown (when being forced to admit to a mistake, you geenrally avoid using "unknown" when you can). The skeptics suddenly found themselves in the opposite chair, trying to desperately get attention to their new fossil find which no one wanted to listen to due to its close association with archeoraptor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are quite correct. The archeoraptor fooled many people due a part of it actually being from a formerly unknown protoavis. If it had been a complete fake, it would have been rather easily detected, as scientists had\ve learned to be somewhat wary of farmers who come in off the field with a relatively intact fossil, as it is, it took four months for the skeptics (not everyone was convinced of its authenticity) to find that it had been glued together. What followed was a rather embarrassing example of human nature. So many people had invested so much of their reputation into this find that the moment it was discovered to be fake, the backlash was brutal. The National Geographic article you are likely referring to, in particular, was most harsh, with barely a line mentioning the part of the bird that was unknown (when being forced to admit to a mistake, you geenrally avoid using "unknown" when you can). The skeptics suddenly found themselves in the opposite chair, trying to desperately get attention to their new fossil find which no one wanted to listen to due to its close association with archeoraptor.

Yes unfortunately the feeling of embarrassement has stopped any further investigation it seems. Its upseting really as like I said before when they discovered it was two separate creatures the research aprubtly stopped even though the fossil actually still comprised of two unknown species! Hopefully someone out there is still intriqued enought to carry on with the research (wish I could get my hands on it!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, they really should look into it more. if there is two unknown species why not? who cares if its got to do with a fraud. its a chance to better understand the evolution of birds. its an asian "piltdown man' really. the perfect missing link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its an asian "piltdown man' really. the perfect missing link.

Actually, in fact it is often called the Piltdown chicken hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that instead of being found frozen in a block of ice, it was found in the darkest, furtherest, reaches of the local supermarket freezer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

piltdown man consisted of a skull found on a ditch dig next to a road. while your joke was funny, i just wanted ot point that out. it wasn't in a block of ice. i guess my asian piltdown man thing was close though :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite right. I was thinking about Frank Hansen’s Siberskoye creature. That's what I get for surfing when I should be sleeping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never heard of it. please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
never heard of it. please explain.

Back in the days of roadside carnivals, a man by the name of Frank Hansen was displaying a "missing link" in a traveling freezer. For 35 cents, you got to peer through a double-paned glass at a huge block of ice containing some sort of furry hominind frozen since the beginning of time, yadda, yadda. It was all fun and games until a reknown doctor (I believe his name was Sanderson), started talking about the creature being an Abominable Snowman, and this being the era of exploration and science and all, everyone jumped on the bandwagon.

You can google "mysterious", "creature", "ice", and you'll probably find some good articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is at least one other thread about this on UM (I started it). This whole case is an excellent example of the extent to which scientists will go sometimes in order to make a name for themselves. Sometimes they get caught, sometimes they don't. It's really no different than a bank robbery. In order to really cash in, you have to take some extreme risks; but if you end up succeeding, the payoff can be significant. So there are always bound to be scientists who will go for it from time to time, and I think it's safe to say that much of what science tells us to be fact at the moment is questionable at best. Just think back fifty years ago at all of the things that science touted as absolute fact that now no longer have much if any validity.

KGS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is at least one other thread about this on UM (I started it). This whole case is an excellent example of the extent to which scientists will go sometimes in order to make a name for themselves. Sometimes they get caught, sometimes they don't. It's really no different than a bank robbery. In order to really cash in, you have to take some extreme risks; but if you end up succeeding, the payoff can be significant. So there are always bound to be scientists who will go for it from time to time, and I think it's safe to say that much of what science tells us to be fact at the moment is questionable at best. Just think back fifty years ago at all of the things that science touted as absolute fact that now no longer have much if any validity.

KGS

That is simply not true at all. You do not get lots of money for finding a new fossil, if your in paleontology to make a lot of money *EDIT*. There is next to no money in the field at all and thoe who make and sell the mismatched fossils are not scientists and no offence KGS but your scientific knowledge is no way near of a standard to call most of science into question.

Edited by Paranoid Android
Offensive remarks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is simply not true at all. You do not get lots of money for finding a new fossil, if your in paleontology to make a lot of money *EDIT*. There is next to no money in the field at all and thoe who make and sell the mismatched fossils are not scientists and no offence KGS but your scientific knowledge is no way near of a standard to call most of science into question.

Actually, Paleontologists usually receive a fairly decent salary and other perks; these people hardly wallow in poverty, and all it takes is a few notable finds for one's reputation to be secured. The following link, if acurate, gives a good indication of what these people can earn:

http://museum.sdsmt.edu/mus_carr.htm

Let's not continue with this charade that science isn't simply one big mony-making scheme. Few people enter the profession not expecting to be adequately compensated. Unless you can provide me with proof that scientists, paleontologists in particular, are paid below the poverty level, I suggest that you refrain from labelling me *EDIT*. You seem to be quite hell bent on downplaying the true nature of science; it's beginning to make me wonder. If you're so right certainly you can go about refuting my assertions with always devolving these discussions into mudslinging events.

KGS

Edited by Paranoid Android
Removed quote remarks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, Paleontologists usually receive a fairly decent salary and other perks; these people hardly wallow in poverty, and all it takes is a few notable finds for one's reputation to be secured. The following link, if acurate, gives a good indication of what these people can earn:

http://museum.sdsmt.edu/mus_carr.htm

Let's not continue with this charade that science isn't simply one big mony-making scheme. Few people enter the profession not expecting to be adequately compensated. Unless you can provide me with proof that scientists, paleontologists in particular, are paid below the poverty level, I suggest that you refrain from labelling me *EDIT*. You seem to be quite hell bent on downplaying the true nature of science; it's beginning to make me wonder. If you're so right certainly you can go about refuting my assertions with always devolving these discussions into mudslinging events.

KGS

You have no idea at all. Who the hell is going to give me high wages to be a zoologist? It doesn't make money for anyone so no one and you are directly insulting me with your *EDIT* assertions. If you don't like science and you think it is just a money making scheme stop using the benefits then.

Edited by Paranoid Android
Edited quote and offensive remark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Settle down folks. I've just had to edit three consecutive posts for a variety of reasons. Mattshark - I'm not sure what you have to be offended about here. KGS has not attacked you directly. The same cannot be said for you, and most of my editing has been related somehow to your personal attacks on him.

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have no idea at all. Who the hell is going to give me high wages to be a zoologist? It doesn't make money for anyone so no one and you are directly insulting me with your *EDIT* assertions. If you don't like science and you think it is just a money making scheme stop using the benefits then.

Well, universities tend to pay zoologists and other scientists quite decent wages. If that link that I posted is any indication, US$70,000 is a fair chunk of change, not to mention $1.1 million in grants. But that's the thing, although $70,000 is good money, it's never really enough for most people, is it? In a highly competative field, one has to rely on more than one's honestly acquired knowledge to get ahead. It's no different than in the corporate world or athletics.

Which brings me to my next point. Yet again you've made a comment to the effect that "why don't I stop using the benefits that science" has brought. Have I ever stated that science is inherently bad and all of the positive things that it brings us evil? I don't think so. But I have stated that I have concerns about the problems that science has caused us in the guise of being beneficial, and that in the last 50 years or so, science gotten way out of control. There was a time when science was for the most part honestly trying to improve things a bit for humans, but now science seems to have become disassociated with reality; it seeks to discover and create everything possible, whether it's GM foods, cloned animals, hundred of thousands of toxic and poisonous compounds, etc. The things that science does now is no longer something to be thankful for, rather feared.

While I personally use some of the benefits of science (and corporations) I don't think that this excludes me from voicing my disagreement or disapproval of how science (and corporations) works.

KGS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is certainly nothing wrong with voicing one's opinion on the subject, particularly when it is done in a reasoned and civil manner. Similarly, one can disagree with another without descending into personal attacks.

On that subject, KGS, I can't help but feel that you are using the "Good Old Days" fallacy, which is basically a fallacy of assuming the existance of some "Golden Age" of a particular situation. In the same way that some talk about how "Crime was so much lower back in the good old days.", or "Morals were higher back in the good old days", you are saying that "Back in the good old days, scientists had good intentions". All three of these situations are assuming that, back in the day, these situations were actually true, but when one checks the records, one finds that crime was pretty much statistically the same, morality was really not so different, and scientist...well, fifty years ago, scientists were actually thought of as somewhat more dangerous than they are now. This was due mainly to the community tending to isolate itself from the less educated masses, leading to a certain distrust that was reflected in the horror movies of the time, which were so common that it is almost a cliche to see the Noble Hero accuse the Mad Scientists of crimes against nature.

When all is said and done, there is really very little difference between scientists and any other profession, and that includes pretty much every aspect of business, such as economics, supply and demand, and yes, even ethics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

paleontologists make more than teachers but aren't poor. not only that, but this has gottne off subject, while yes, there are frauds, no all, not even close to half, are. and yes, alot of the things once thought fact are now proven false, its simply because of new evidence. oh, and KGS, paleontoligists can't spend grant money on themselves they must spend it on there expiditions. these statements are not personal attacks on either of you. personal attacks are htat of demonwatcher. those are personal attacks, right mattshark? why you attacked eachither is beyond me, but u must say; "good show, quite entertaining indeed".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paleontologists make more than teachers but aren't poor. not only that, but this has gottne off subject, while yes, there are frauds, no all, not even close to half, are. and yes, alot of the things once thought fact are now proven false, its simply because of new evidence. oh, and KGS, paleontoligists can't spend grant money on themselves they must spend it on there expiditions. these statements are not personal attacks on either of you. personal attacks are htat of demonwatcher. those are personal attacks, right mattshark? why you attacked eachither is beyond me, but u must say; "good show, quite entertaining indeed".

personal attacks by me huh, then waht that satatement you just made, that can be construed as a personal attack, can it not?

any way on topic, you are right about one thing paleontologists, do make a fair wage, but they usually spend that money so they can get the grants and are therefore able to go on expeditions to places where discovery can potentially be made, and yes a few high profile discoveries can make your career, however, they can also destroy your career. and i believe that goes for all scientific disciplines.(correct me on that if not correct)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.