Accountancy and Bones

Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
As an accountant, I'm trained always to exercise a measure of skepticism. Indeed we study four years to learn one thing: always double check.

Has there ever been a chemical analysis of "those dinosaur bones," to verify they aren't of a mold? History does show sometimes there's conceit of evidence; for the sake of maintenance of public ignorance.
 
Mar 4, 2020
229
29
130
There are just too many, in too many different places, for fossils to be a fraud. The "bones" and fossils are made out of rock. The rock molecules have replaced the bio-molecules, but keeping the same structural pattern.

Fossils are real evidence of pass existence. The question is when. Modern science doesn't doubt that their dating decay rates have been constant. This dating consistency has laid out a time-line for past events. This has become the norm for most. This gives us the age of the earth, for instance.

But, there are still problems. These decay rates are based measurement of course, but also depend on certain "daughter" chain products(nuclei). Google "daughter problems with Radiometric dating techniques".

There are still many mysteries about the decay constant. There might be a link between it and solar flares, believe it or not. Perhaps they have resolved that one, haven't checked.

In other words, if the dates are true..........then there are other things(matter/nuclei) out of place. Or out of time. And no clear understanding of the displacement. It's like all the other sciences, it doesn't fit quite as well as it should.
 
Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
There are just too many, in too many different places, for fossils to be a fraud. The "bones" and fossils are made out of rock. The rock molecules have replaced the bio-molecules, but keeping the same structural pattern.
I've seen layers of moss activity six inches thick, having formed diverse, porous, sandy rock, projecting laterally from solid rock. It didn't require thousands of years.

Fossils are real evidence of pass existence. The question is when. Modern science doesn't doubt that their dating decay rates have been constant. This dating consistency has laid out a time-line for past events. This has become the norm for most. This gives us the age of the earth, for instance.

But, there are still problems. These decay rates are based measurement of course, but also depend on certain "daughter" chain products(nuclei). Google "daughter problems with Radiometric dating techniques".
Then there are problems with failed integrity--of the people--in the scientific community, when presenting things, in formal educational settings, and in informal contexts, like gigantic measurements of light, age of earth (against certain historical records, joint with active Jewish genealogies), etc., when so many present the intersections of the past as factual without presenting a first basis.

In other words, if the dates are true..........then there are other things(matter/nuclei) out of place. Or out of time. And no clear understanding of the displacement. It's like all the other sciences, it doesn't fit quite as well as it should.
It's because it's a created order; by art, not science: it's asymmetric.
 
Mar 4, 2020
229
29
130
All science can do, is to show you their measurements, and then tell you their best reasoning as to why the measurements are what they are. As proof of that reasoning, they predict. And if the prediction has a high success rate.........the reasoning is considered accepted.

But there are always exceptions. And surprises. These exceptions and surprises are proof of randomness and probability for many. They learn to except this concept.

It's not a matter of integrity, it's a procedure, a protocol for the unknown. In accounting, everything can be found or traced and inventoried. Because everything is known.

Science tries to account for the unknown. Blindfolded accounting......we can't see everything.

When an accountant is asked a question, he can account for every dit and dot.

But science is a consensus of dits and dots. It's a little mushy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hellopunyhumans
Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
All science can do, is to show you their measurements, and then tell you their best reasoning as to why the measurements are what they are. As proof of that reasoning, they predict. And if the prediction has a high success rate.........the reasoning is considered accepted.
It's scandalous. They're quintessentially lying; and feeding lies to children. A magician can predict something superficial with very little slight of hand. When you call that proof, you endorse a lie. Proof begins with the first basis.

But there are always exceptions. And surprises. These exceptions and surprises are proof of randomness and probability for many. They learn to except this concept.
It's not proof of randomness at all, nor are the probabilities consistent. It's proof rather that nature is of a high order; it's asymmetric; artistic.

It's not a matter of integrity, it's a procedure, a protocol for the unknown. In accounting, everything can be found or traced and inventoried. Because everything is known.
Wrong. What I'm doing here is accounting. Whether for reports of assets or for reports of the natural order there's equal scandal. I've chosen to account for better things.

Science tries to account for the unknown. Blindfolded accounting......we can't see everything.

When an accountant is asked a question, he can account for every dit and dot.
No. An honest accountant gives an honest report. The records are illegitimate.

But science is a consensus of dits and dots. It's a little mushy.
Then tell the truth.
 
Mar 19, 2020
262
34
230
I mean, it would be extremly hard to replicate fossilized bone, which in good specimens you can tell it's natural in ways that we don't have the technology to replicate yet. Maybe in the future we'll have atomic 3d printing. Like having sturctures similar to bone marrow. THe size of a conspiracy to create millions of perfect dinosaur bones would take forever and with our changing understandings, would have to all be dug up, improved, and replanted.
 
Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
I mean, it would be extremly hard to replicate fossilized bone, which in good specimens you can tell it's natural in ways that we don't have the technology to replicate yet. Maybe in the future we'll have atomic 3d printing. Like having sturctures similar to bone marrow. THe size of a conspiracy to create millions of perfect dinosaur bones would take forever and with our changing understandings, would have to all be dug up, improved, and replanted.
How many of these millions of bones have you handled, and seen? Anyone? Seen of the relics themselves; not in images, and handled? There aren't many conspiracies; but there is one age-old conspiracy.
 
Mar 19, 2020
262
34
230
How many of these millions of bones have you handled, and seen? Anyone? Seen of the relics themselves; not in images, and handled? There aren't many conspiracies; but there is one age-old conspiracy.
I dug some up. Along with half developed coal still in tree shape you could trace the shape of the stick. I helped the paleontologists remove surrounding soils. There were multiple specimens on display found there. It was one of the best experiences of my life. They let me take a little bit of the coal because they have so much from the site. I assume I'm now part of your wacky conspiracy.
 
Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
I dug some up. Along with half developed coal still in tree shape you could trace the shape of the stick. I helped the paleontologists remove surrounding soils. There were multiple specimens on display found there. It was one of the best experiences of my life. They let me take a little bit of the coal because they have so much from the site. I assume I'm now part of your wacky conspiracy.
Cool. There is conspiracy. Not many. And none are mine, as you say.
 
Mar 19, 2020
262
34
230
Cool. There is conspiracy. Not many. And none are mine, as you say.
You made up the conspiracy, it yours. I just directly told you I helped find one. We had to be so careful of it. I saw WITH MY EYES that you're wrong. I assume you think that every bit of extremely frail tree fossils was supposed to be placed above the bones in viewing distance of a shopping center. I assume some fossil gang comes in at night and places crumbling mineralized dinosaur femur in a perfect layered dirt and doesn't disurb the previously excavated place fossils above it. I assume the grass that had to be removed grew back in a few days. I assume a previous bone discovered on the site when construction vehicles crushed it like a cracker when driving over it to build the shopping center were actually putting a rich fossil horseshoe bend in the way of their construction and then kindly donated it to science. AND SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY, SOMEONE is benefiting from this enough to fund it. The sheer commitment it would require to keep a team that creates a universal fossil record that makes sense wherever it is and NO ONE gets caught!?!
I apoligize for going off on you and I know I can't change your mind but I get angry at this made up mumbo jumbo. I know this will only cement in your mind that you are somehow being prosecuted by some satanist cult that includes every paleontologist on earth. You probably just skipped here and ignored what I said and are going to say some **** about missing links and advanced secret government thing that employs billions to tunnel underground and fill in everything we know about the past.
 
Mar 19, 2020
262
34
230
Also, you asked I had handled and seen these bones with my own eyes, expecting me to say no and using it as a gotcha. I said I did, and then you pretended like I didn't saying it was "cool". The sheer amount you have to lie to yourself to ignore it when the evidence you asked for is presented.
 
Mar 19, 2020
262
34
230
I've seen layers of moss activity six inches thick, having formed diverse, porous, sandy rock, projecting laterally from solid rock. It didn't require thousands of years.
That moss isn't being molecularly replaced, it's a concretion of the sediments caught in the moss blankets that hardens over time. I have a fossil fish in a sedimentary rock (its not synthetic concrete, I checked. I paid good money for this thing, not your average gift shop ****.) And it is IN that rock good. Building a sedimentary rock that is that compressed and hard takes time, and the sediments could start out like your waterfall moss concretions. (I saw one on a kayak trip with some friends of mine) But they get built up and compressed at a time scale we can't replicate without shattering the fossil. The only other way humans could possibly get something stuck in a real rock is by melting a rock around it. And there is a reason we don't find non imprint fossils in igneous rock.
 
Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
That moss isn't being molecularly replaced, it's a concretion of the sediments caught in the moss blankets that hardens over time. I have a fossil fish in a sedimentary rock (its not synthetic concrete, I checked. I paid good money for this thing, not your average gift shop ****.) And it is IN that rock good. Building a sedimentary rock that is that compressed and hard takes time, and the sediments could start out like your waterfall moss concretions. (I saw one on a kayak trip with some friends of mine) But they get built up and compressed at a time scale we can't replicate without shattering the fossil. The only other way humans could possibly get something stuck in a real rock is by melting a rock around it. And there is a reason we don't find non imprint fossils in igneous rock.
That makes sense.
 
Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
You made up the conspiracy, it yours.
It wasn't a statement, it was a conjecture. A presupposition. There's a difference. I had strong suspicion.

You brought up conspiracy. I answered, "there is conspiracy," not a conspiracy. Conspiracy in general does exist. There is one age old conspiracy written of by the Hebrews. That's the only specific one I alluded too: Psalm 2.
 
Last edited:
Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
That moss isn't being molecularly replaced, it's a concretion of the sediments caught in the moss blankets that hardens over time. I have a fossil fish in a sedimentary rock (its not synthetic concrete, I checked. I paid good money for this thing, not your average gift shop ****.) And it is IN that rock good. Building a sedimentary rock that is that compressed and hard takes time, and the sediments could start out like your waterfall moss concretions. (I saw one on a kayak trip with some friends of mine) But they get built up and compressed at a time scale we can't replicate without shattering the fossil. The only other way humans could possibly get something stuck in a real rock is by melting a rock around it. And there is a reason we don't find non imprint fossils in igneous rock.
But the rock formed around your fish bones seems equivalent with my sandstone formation. You shed light that mine did form by sedimentary formations throughout a moss specimen life cycle; but yours appears equivalent through an algae or seaweed life cycle, through which there should be much tighter concretion.
 
Mar 19, 2020
262
34
230
But the rock formed around your fish bones seems equivalent with my sandstone formation. You shed light that mine did form by sedimentary formations throughout a moss specimen life cycle; but yours appears equivalent through an algae or seaweed life cycle, through which there should be much tighter concretion.
Not Really. The fish rock requires pressure and is a lot harder than a concretion. The formation of the moss is like a first step. After centuries of built up pressure, it becomes more like the sandstone in the fish fossil. If there is a shrew that got stuck and died on the moss, after a very long time, it may mineralize under the pressure of the above rocks being built up (and I don't mean a few years of small concretions, I mean millenia of time under crushing weight of tons of rock) A skeleton is not a fossil. It needs to be mineralized.
 
Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
Not Really. The fish rock requires pressure and is a lot harder than a concretion. The formation of the moss is like a first step. After centuries of built up pressure, it becomes more like the sandstone in the fish fossil. If there is a shrew that got stuck and died on the moss, after a very long time, it may mineralize under the pressure of the above rocks being built up (and I don't mean a few years of small concretions, I mean millenia of time under crushing weight of tons of rock) A skeleton is not a fossil. It needs to be mineralized.
I think the model is wrong. The 6 inches or more of rock under the new generation of moss was crumbly. Compare the porous nature of moss to the porous nature's of seaweed and of algae. The worker producing the broad poricity of my crumbly rock; the worker, is clearly the moss itself, not pressure. Now consider the environment, and the workers, seaweed or algae, of your poor dead fish. :ROFLMAO:
 
Mar 19, 2020
262
34
230
I think the model is wrong. The 6 inches or more of rock under the new generation of moss was crumbly. Compare the porous nature of moss to the porous nature's of seaweed and of algae. The worker producing the broad poricity of my crumbly rock; the worker, is clearly the moss itself, not pressure. Now consider the environment, and the workers, seaweed or algae, of your poor dead fish. :ROFLMAO:
It is an undisputed fact that the fish's bones have been replaced with minerals. Now, if we leave fish bones sitting on hunk of the moss concretion, It will likely just rot too quickly due to not being in a mostly airtight enviroment. Fossilization therefore requires rapid burial, which the moss certainly can't provide. It also requires extreme amounts of time and pressure to solidify the burial material, perhaps the sand the body was deposited in in a flood. Groundwater seeps through the ground bringing minerals from the surrounding rock to the fossil, where it replaces dead cells, tissue, and pores in the bone with mineral deposits. there are other types of fossils to, like FROZEN MAMOTHS THAT SOME REASERCHERS ATE, and imprints where the ground hardens with a rotting leaf in it long before being covered by sediment, which it could form.
 
Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
It is an undisputed fact that the fish's bones have been replaced with minerals. Now, if we leave fish bones sitting on hunk of the moss concretion, It will likely just rot too quickly due to not being in a mostly airtight enviroment. Fossilization therefore requires rapid burial, which the moss certainly can't provide. It also requires extreme amounts of time and pressure to solidify the burial material, perhaps the sand the body was deposited in in a flood. Groundwater seeps through the ground bringing minerals from the surrounding rock to the fossil, where it replaces dead cells, tissue, and pores in the bone with mineral deposits. there are other types of fossils to, like FROZEN MAMOTHS THAT SOME REASERCHERS ATE, and imprints where the ground hardens with a rotting leaf in it long before being covered by sediment, which it could form.
Undisputed; very different from being indisputable.

This is a presupposition:
The idea is not that the fish bone would be left on the after- product of algae concretion. The algae would settle on the fishbone, with certain other optimal substances, concreting the fish bone. The moss equivalency might be moss reaching across a rock, finding a skeleton of a sparrow, growing around, and concreting it. It might not be as solid as the fish, since algae is much finer. The same way that the moss-concretion required many reproductive cycles, the algae would require the same. The fish bone wouldn't rot in certain algae-inclusive enclosures. It acts as a membrane. Like putting the bones in peanut oil. Algae could certainly provide rapid burial with other certain conditions in place. The time requirement is equivalent with the time requirement with which the moss concretion formed; not time, reproductive cycles. Science is wrong about extreme pressures for rock formation. The model of mineral replacement offered by science is wrong. Those minerals were encased enzymatically. Otherwise, the bone decays. As for the mammoth stew, who's to say they weren't of a small population, current, but undetected? In this case and of the leaf, they're still going concerns.
 
Mar 4, 2020
229
29
130
With all the amount of articles, documentation, research, images and videos available on the net...........and if you still believe dinosaur bones are fake and phony..........I don't believe anyone could change your mind.

What's really surprising, is that with only your opinion, and absolutely no evidence, you think that someone might listen and believe you.

We....strike that......almost ALL people now have access to an Free Instant Library that ancient Alexandria could only dream of.

One may find lots of useful information in it, if one knows how to filter results.
 
Dec 23, 2020
68
2
55
With all the amount of articles, documentation, research, images and videos available on the net...........and if you still believe dinosaur bones are fake and phony..........I don't believe anyone could change your mind.

What's really surprising, is that with only your opinion, and absolutely no evidence, you think that someone might listen and believe you.

We....strike that......almost ALL people now have access to an Free Instant Library that ancient Alexandria could only dream of.

One may find lots of useful information in it, if one knows how to filter results.
For as scientific as you folks claim to be, you sure don't follow the course, nor read a conversant well.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts