9 thoughts on “Log or Fossil?

    • 100% your idea, brother. And yes, it puts all of us involved in this project miles ahead of the clowns on YouTube spouting nonsense from behind their computer monitors. I have documented, on behalf of everybody involved, the primary evidence which underpins several species of ‘dinosaurs’. This is the best the scientific establishment has to offer, and I have seen it with my own eyes, and captured footage for others to inspect for themselves.

      Don’t find these wood-looking ‘fossils’ convincing? Then welcome to the other side

  • Interesting video, which is certainly thought provoking. However (please take this as constructive feedback) I find your presentation style very off-putting. I suggest if you dropped the patronising tone and your apparent air of superiority then it would vastly improve the viewer experience.

    I have joined as a free member with the likely intention of upgrading if I liked what I saw. However, after watching the 3 videos available to free members, I became very distracted by your presentation style, which greatly distracted me from the information that your were conveying, to the point that I fast forwarded where you were talking about non dino subjects (e.g. The sustainability of small towns).

    As I say, please take this as constructive feedback.

    • I see great value in constructive criticism, and appreciate when people take the time to offer it to me. Sadly yours is not constructive at all. What do you suggest I do differently so as to better appeal to people like yourself? Are there key terms or phrases I am using which I ought to omit? Or are there key terms or phrases I am omitting which you would prefer to see me add/employ? Is my manner of speaking too fast, or too confident, or too matter-of-fact? The more specific you are, the more chance that your criticism may actually become constructive, rather than merely a venting of frustration.

      Work with me here, Roon ūüôā

  • I wonder: is there any archival footage/pics/documentation of the original “find” or the excavation (or were these bones just sitting on top of the ground)?

    Secondly, if those bones were of the same animal, it would seem that it was deformed because the opposing bones’ shape/size are significantly different. It would seem to have walked with a horrible limp, I assume from birth.

    • Excellent question. During our day at the AAoD centre, we were presented with no video footage from the original dig. This does not mean the footage does not exist. I purchased the full documentary about the find (and the museum) which I plan to watch soon; perhaps they provide that footage in there. I will report back once I have watched it in full. Note that their story is that the fossils were indeed laying there on the surface of the earth, which is how a regular farmer happened to see them in the first place.

      Your second question is another good one. Why are the bones such different shapes and sizes? Just wait til I release the video footage from inside that same room: it is even more blatant. Of course a dino believer (or expert scientist) might reply that the variations are due to changes over time. After all, 95 millions is a long time ūüėČ

  • Great question buelahMan. I am referring to the first question… I was just wondering that myself. Surely, there is…right?

  • I mean they’re people who believe trees are mountains, so logs are fossils isn’t a far stretch.

    • Let’s be honest: the clowns parading ‘no trees on flat earth’ don’t even believe their own nonsense. The ‘scientists’ who have faith in these ‘dinosaur fossils’, however…

Leave a Reply