Friday, January 22, 2016

Jurassic Dinosaur Discovered In South Wales


Two fossil hunting brothers discovered the remains of a new species of Jurassic dinosaur dating back over 200 million years. The remains might be the oldest ever found in the UK, and maybe even the world.

A new species of dinosaur has been uncovered in South Wales, dating back 201 million years.

It is possibly the oldest-known Jurassic dinosaur ever found in the UK, perhaps even the world.

The dinosaur's remains were discovered by fossil hunting brothers, Nick and Rob Hanigan, who have since named the animal "Dracoraptor Hanigani", a reference to the Welsh dragon and their own surname.

They found the bones in 2014, but it has taken palaeontologists two years to analyse them fully.

They are now displayed in the National Museum Cardiff.

For the rest of the article, click here.

30 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. joe just got blown the f@ck out!

      Delete
    2. just listen to joe special pleading!! He got blown the f#ck out majorly!!!

      YES YES YES!!!!

      Delete
  2. So: here is a creature that is seen close up, looking through windows; is seen standing in the middle and far distance; is seen walking in woods, is seen walking and running across roads in headlights and in daylight, is seen hunting, foraging and stalking. Here is a creature that is heard breathing, chattering and growling up close; is heard howling in the distance; is heard knocking sticks against trees, banging rocks. Here is a creature that creeps round campsites, stalks round backyards; a creature that displays aggression, stalks hikers, shakes branches, bushes over small trees and throws rocks. A creature that leaves big footprints. A creature that thousands of people claim to have witnessed.
    Now along with all these descriptions it also possesses the singular attribute of being preternaturally elusive enough not to have left enough evidence that there is a general consensus among the scientific community that it even exists.
    AND THAT IS THE BIGFOOT DILEMMA IN A NUTSHELL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately for your easily spotted rhetorical nonsense... For all those sightings, tracks, etc... Enthusiasts can reference every single type of evidence short of a modern type specimen. It's elusiveness comes down to one factor that is eluding researchers, and that's being able to track it... And the best trackers in the world refer to it as things akin to Boss of the Woods, Master of the Mountain, etc.

      Rhetorical denial... The pseudosceptic's approach in a nutshell.

      Delete
    2. ... And on the flip side, pseudosceptics will preach that a creature that is seen close up, looking through windows; is seen standing in the middle and far distance; is seen walking in woods, is seen walking and running across roads in headlights and in daylight, is seen hunting, foraging and stalking... A creature that is heard breathing, chattering and growling up close; is heard howling in the distance; is heard knocking sticks against trees, banging rocks... A creature that creeps round campsites, stalks round backyards; a creature that displays aggression, stalks hikers, shakes branches, bushes over small trees and throws rocks... A creature that leaves big footprints... A creature that thousands of people claim to have witnessed...

      Is all part of a long culture hopping conspiracy to get everyone's money.

      Cookoo!!

      Delete
    3. Joe got blown the f@ck out by the anon above. I mean badly!!! Thats gotta hurt Joerg!!

      Delete
    4. So it does ALL those things and THE ONLY PROBLEM is no one is good enough to track it....
      ....because of its preternatural elusiveness: The BFRO website averages over a dozen accidental sightings/experiences a month.
      Yet it's impossible to go out and Deliberately see one.
      You think THAT is what's nonsense.
      And:
      Only you have mentioned conspiracy theories on this page, not I.
      Must be on your mind.

      In fact, far from being aggressive, dismissive or presenting convoluted rhetoric in a confrontational fashion; I simply wanted to lay out what most open minded people who merely have doubts think is the central issue.
      The problem is big enough on its own but also causes a domino effect that moves Bigfoot past cryptozoology into Fringe wonderland.
      I.E. When you place all the proposed evidence next to its preternaturally elusive attribute, it was only a matter of time before the long term concussed Dr Johnson types started proposing portals and UFOs.
      That's why the general public quickly box Bigfoot with Nessie and suchlike rather than cealocanths and beni apes.

      I suppose expecting you to pleasantly discuss a real problem rather than simply bring it down to the same old axes you repeatedly grind, rudely away at was over ambitious of me and I apologise for expecting too much.

      Delete
    5. Plenty of people have seen a Sasquatch having deliberately attempted to see one, however, "what are the chances of that, eh?" Sound familiar?? Just look at one of the most famous sources of evidence for this subject; the Patterson Gimlin film. This was the result of very well put together research of Bluff Creek and passed on to Roger Patterson who chased it up with a camera, and then happened to have filmed one... Not to try and put words in your mouth, but you'll no doubt have issue with the deliberate nature of this scenario though, right? And pray tell... In your cynicism of the frequency of sightings scenarios that you reference, along with the tracks that you alluded to, what would they all be pigeon holed as should they indeed be an attempt at falsification, to which a significant frequency would have to be that after missidentification? Wouldn't that appear to be a conspiracy of epic proportions? It's not so much what's on my mind as it is reading between the lines as to your suggestions as to how these things occur... Maybe I'm a step ahead or something?

      I find it interesting that someone with such an approach would feel they are talking on behalf of "open minded people". Wouldn't an open minded person take all the tracks, dermals, footage, audio, thermal, hairs, etc, and have the opposite approach to what you are suggesting? If something exists, it leaves it's physical sign... Things from wonderland don't achieve that. Might I add... That some of the very best conservationists and THE best primatologists are enthusiastic enough to not be put off with cryptozoology and UFO folk.

      Sensitive much?

      Delete
    6. Again with the high handed rudeness. Boxes of casts in one academic's office. One single fingerprint expert.
      Not one academic institution saying these things or any hair sample constitute viable evidence.
      Brian Sykes going it alone: Oxford University very definitely not part of the team for his investigation. And he still won't say a clear yes or no or even a maybe.
      And finally you:
      You: framing every instance of expressed doubt as a personal attack on yourself and responding aggressively.
      You: backing yourself up by accusing someone as not being open minded because they simply disagree with you. Then simply listing the proposed evidence again and reprimanding anyone who might point out they're all outside legitimate academia. (Even Meldrum admits he gets funny looks in the SCR.)
      You: utterly unable see that that is the most closed minded anyone could possibly be. Utterly unable to spot that every aggressive post you make about "the negative proof fallacy" is simply an example of your own "confirmation bias."
      And finally you: thinking you're defending the cause of Bigfoot but being so inflexible and unable to acknowledge it has major problems coherent theoretical or peer reviewed a priori physical evidence. Something which would be stimulating to debate. But you won't allow it
      And as a result the place becomes infested with trolls, because those disgusting people trawl the internet looking for easy targets.

      Delete
    7. So someone is not open minded because they disagree with what you regard as evidence.
      List the primatologists other than Jeff (all coy about saying yes or no) Meldrum. And quote please.
      Conservationist is a description, not an academic discipline. That would be ecology. My next door neighbour but one recycles nearly three quarters of his waste, volunteers on environmental regeneration projects and actually has a negative carbon footprint making him an amazing conservationist. However he's an accountant and thinks cryptozoology is silly.
      And finally, the person who rounds aggressively on anyone who presents even a doubtful let alone skeptical opinion is saying some else is sensitive. Someone who thinks he has the right to simply not allow a different opinion to sit in the comments without reeling out the same list of things he regards as evidence.
      And prattling on about "negative proof fallacy" whilst seemingly unaware that every single thing he has ever written can be dismissed as confirmation bias.

      Delete
    8. The following have all verified forensic physical evidence (dermals) of an unclassified bipedal primate; Tatyana Gladkova, Dermatoglyphics expert at the USSR Institute of Anthropology. Mikhail Urisson and Vladimir Volkov-Dubrovin (Deputy Director of the Institute) agrees with her opinion. Henrietta Heet, Candidate of Biological Sciences and Senior Scientific Worker, Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Douglas M. Monsoor, Supervisor, Criminalistics Unit, Department of Public Safety, Lakewood, Colorado. Certified Latent Print Examiner, and fellow of the Fingerprint Society of the United Kingdom. Robert D. Olsen, Sr., Criminalist, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Topeka, Kansas. Certified Latent Print Examiner, Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Fellow of the Fingerprint Society of the United Kingdom,Member of International Association for Identification, etc. Edward Palma, Fingerprint examiner for the Laramie County Sheriff's Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Benny Kling, Instructor, Law Enforcement Academy, Douglas, Wyoming. Jimmy Chilcutt, fingerprint technician at the Conroe Police Department, highly regarded by agents of the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and state and local law enforcement agencies for his innovative techniques and ability to find fingerprints where others fail.

      Unknown pimate hair, verified on an instance where a sighting occured by multiple people, at least one of these a government employee (where tracks were accumulated in the same instance), verified by Dr Paul Fuerst of Ohio State University & the Oregon Regional Primate Research Centre. The hairs were collected by forest rangers at a sighting where tracks were accumulated too. Dr Frank Poirier, chairman of the Ohio State's department of anthropology confirms this. These were later confirmed to also be be case by Dr Fahrenbach;
      "I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair - at least what I am willing to identify as such)."
      "Eventually I found a match in a rather obscure database from Central Asia. The Walla Walla sample matched an induvidual from Uzbekistan! How on earth could that be explained. I have not had long to think about it, but my immediate thought is that I find it very difficult to reconcile this result on the Walla Walla hair with the impressive provenance provided for it by Paul Freeman and his companions. The Walla Walla hair result is the most intriguing from among my North American samples. I scarcely think I can claim to have identified the sasquatch as a feral Uzbek, but that is the closest I have managed to get at the moment".
      - Dr Bryn Sykes
      So it is here, considering we have hair samples that have uniform morphology verified by multiple experts, as we do with biological dermals verified at the same frequency, that we are at a stage of research that points to an unknown primate leaving its sign. Even though we don't prove anything by this, we have reason to be encouraged and are warranted in persuing the research, whilst it is here we can draw on principles like Occam's Razor in a heuristical sense for the broader picture of what's going on.

      Delete
    9. Jane Goodall is a world-famous primate researcher and author, she revealed, in studies of chimpanzees in Tanzania’s Gombe National Park, surprising behaviours in humanity’s closest living relative. Goodall has won numerous international awards for her contributions to conservation, anthropology and animal welfare. Currently affiliated with Cornell University, she serves as the National Geographic Society’s explorer-in-residence.

      George Schaller is an International science director for the Wildlife Conservation Society. His pioneering field studies of mountain gorillas setthe research standard later adopted by Goodall and gorilla researcher Dian Fosse. Schaller’s 1963 book, “The Year of the Gorilla,” debunked popular perceptions of the great ape and reintroduced “King Kong” as a shy, social vegetarian. Schaller’s studies of tigers, lions, snow leopards and pandas also advanced the knowledge of those endangered mammals. In 1973, he won the National Book Award for “The Serengeti Lion: A Study of Predator-Prey Relations,” and in 1980 was awarded the World Wildlife Fund Gold Medal for his contributions to the understanding and conservation of endangered species. During the past decade, he has focused on the little-known wildlife of Mongolia, Laos and the Tibetan Plateau.

      "I am convinced that the Sasquatch exists, but whether it is all that it is cracked up to be is another matter altogether. There must be SOMETHING in north-west America that needs explaining, and that something leaves man-like footprints. The evidence I have adduced in favour of the reality of the Sasquatch is not hard evidence; few physicists, biologists or chemists would accept it, but nevertheless it IS evidence and cannot be ignored."
      John Napier MRCS, LRCP, DSC(Lond.) "Bigfoot- The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality"- Sphere Books Ltd.

      Russell Mitterneier is a trained primatologist, herpetologist and Biological anthropologist, he has discovered five new species of monkey, including two very recently. Mittermeier has conducted fieldwork in more than 20 countries around the tropical world, with special emphasis on Brazil, Guyana and Madagascar. Since 1989, Mitterneier has served as president of Conservation International, which has become one of the most aggressive and effective conservation organizations in the world during the last decade. His publications include 10 books and more than 300 scientific papers and popular articles.

      Daris Swindler is an Emeritus professor of anthropology at the University of Washington, Swindler is a leading expert on living and fossil primate teeth and one of the top primate anatomists in general. His book, “An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy,” has become a standard reference in the field. A forensic anthropologist, Swindler worked on the Ted Bundy and Green River murder cases along with hundreds of others.

      Esteban Sarmiento is a functional anatomist affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History, Sarmiento focuses on the skeletons of hominids. In 2001, he participated with George Schaller in a search for Congo’s Bili ape, a possible species super-chimp reported by natives but unknown to Western science. Sarmiento has also studied the Cross River gorilla, a critically endangered subspecies on the Nigeria-Cameroon border whose population is thought to be numbered in the hundreds. He has taught in the U.S., South Africa and Uganda.

      Delete
    10. The following represent the attached academic institutions around the world, and are on Meldrun's online journal editorial board... John Bindernagel, PhD Courtenay, BC, Canada, Colin Groves, PhD Australian National University Canberra, Australia, Chris Loether, PhD Idaho Sate University Pocatello, ID, Jeffrey McNeely, PhD Chief Scientist IUCN - World Conservation Union Gland, Switzerland, Lyn Miles, PhD University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, John Mionczynski Wildlife Consultant Atlantic City, WY, Anna Nekaris, PhD Oxford Brooks University Oxford, England, Ian Redmond, OBE Conservation Consultant Manchester, England, Esteban Sarmiento, PhD Human Evolution Foundation East Brunswick, NJ, Zhoua Guoxing, PhD Beijing Museum of Natural History Beijing, China.

      Delete
    11. ... And pray tell, how can one turn a negative proof fallacy in favour of his own argument, it works both ways? Do you understand the meaning of the concept? The confirmation of the evidence I quote comes directly from repeatable scientific evidence, confirmed by scientists and this is merely what the scientific method demands. The "major problems" are in fact one significant one; tracking... And since there has been not one consorted effort by primatologists in this regard, but amateur researchers have manage to accumulate every source of evidence short of modern type specimen, what does that tell you?

      Did I just read you reference peer review like it's some mantle of integrity? Also... Please don't refer to yourself as a "sceptic". They're meant to reserve judgement and question their own stances.

      "You, you, you, you..." Wow. Ironically, anyone would think that you don't like having your views scrutinised. Sensitive much??

      Delete
    12. Oh... And if your version of being "open minded" is naivety of be subject in line with a gross level of denial regarding the frequency of evidence... Then I'll be happy to be labelled "closed minded" in this instance.

      Delete
    13. And what reputable academic institutions were they representing when your illustrious list made their statements? Or were they just representing themselves?
      And what's bigfoot'a official taxonomical classification.
      And how many of these groups have had their findings published in a peer reviewed journal that people have actually heard of?
      And your comment on negative proof fallacy doesn't actually make sense. Philosophy not a strong point either.

      Delete
    14. haha, iktomi just schooled anon something terribly !


      Joe

      Delete
    15. Well, the DNA of Sasquatch keeps coming back as homo sapien, so make what you will of that. It's my thinking that they are an ancient version of us. And I keep reading of this peer review process, are you aware of how much that is coming under scrutiny? There are even papers on how faulty and how subsceptible to CONFIRMATION BIAS... Don't take it from me, take it from a Nobel Winner;
      http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals

      ... And here's that paper;
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
      ... Would you like me to post extracts from that?? Also... Would you like me to show you examples of where the peer review process has been used to manipulate the system and lie to the scientific public? Surely, someone so righteous and so standard adhering as yourself can't be invested in full faith of this system??

      "The negative proof fallacy is where one assumes something is true if it cannot be proven false. It can also happen when one assumes that something is false if it cannot be proven true."
      ... So how can I use this in confirmation?? You're not making sense???

      Delete
    16. So the peer reviews process that maintains the validity of all those PHDs you reeled out is fundamentally flawed eh? No PhDs without the peer review process old been. In fact the vox viva is just a really intense peer review. None of those expert would get the label without it. Silly point to make.
      Usually people are actually disagreeing with given evidence or your well reeled out list rather than committing that particular fallacy. Also it is never incumbent upon those being presented with an assertion to agree with it unless they can prove it false. You're using philosophy for dummies as a weapon. Responding "I don't agree that is sufficient/plausible evidence for a relict hominid" isn't fallacious, it's simple disagreement. That's just trumped up charges.
      And you rely upon that everytime someone disagrees with you. You do this so you can finish with some base ad hominim comment or two. Because doubting Bigfoot and insulting Iktomi are one in the same, it seems.

      Delete
    17. Iktomi 10:23 = an Ad Hominim argument.
      Crude.

      Delete
    18. "Silly point"? Rich considering you're flogging a dead horse now, "old been"... And the validity of the PhD's I've sourced has nothing to do with the fact that such a process should be a means for you to scrutinise, since you're so inclined to identify what's credible or not. You are "conveniently" forgetting that you asked for academics and you got them.

      "Usually people are actually disagreeing with given evidence or your well reeled out list than committing that particular fallacy".
      ... And what has your argument been on this comment section and the next? What is this holy grail of physical evidence you persistently suggest is lacking, to which in turn fills you with such apparent doubt? That's not dummy level philosophy, that's an easily attributable logical fallacy in it's essence. If you responded with "I don't think the evidence justifies it's existence", that would be fine and rational, but that has not been your entire argument has it? What's more, is that you don't appear to be privy the that state of evidence.

      Doubting "Bigfoot" is fine... Posting your opinion on a blog that's designed to provoke discussion and that will no doubt acquire the opinions of others should be expected. You have repeatedly suggested everyone else is guilty of exercising tone lowering methods, when the only person who's clearly a little hot under the collar, appears to be you.

      Delete
    19. Last paragraph= argument ad hominim.
      Crude.

      Delete
    20. Joe is trolling the site again - posting huge amounts of guff that nobody ever reads - i think it`s all the guff he`s keeps in his plastic "bigfoot" folders that he stores on top of the wardrobe.

      Delete
    21. and what do you ^ keep in your plastic folders ?
      Probably last week's leftover sandwich

      Joe

      Delete
  3. Dinos are young ---------

    oooey----gooey dino flesh, with DNA.

    See Jurasic by Trey Smith, get over the brain-washing

    young Dino's, oil, coal

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ i will take a guess and state that you are even younger - like child age - you simpleton.

      Hahahahahahaha

      Delete
    2. Troll Killer is the most credible voice of the anti-science creationist crowd.

      Says a lot doesn't it?

      Delete