THE SKELETON OF JEBAL-BAREZ

[mxmendo]

I work in northern California as an archaeologist and keep my eye out for weird stuff like this. <br> <br>This archaeologist working on the reconstruction of the Iranian city of Bam (following the 2003 earthquake) was told of this skeleton by a local kid. This guy doesn't seem like a "fringe" or "aternative" science type, I only skimmed his site but most of his interests appear to be pretty straightforward conventional stuff and his links on other subjects are very mainstream (BBC and National Geographic, etc.). Seems his focus is on human prehistory, not paleontology, so he not necessarily an expert on dinosaurs per se. He's got a couple pics at his site.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.paleoshilling.nl/whatsnew.html">www.paleoshilling.nl/whatsnew.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Quote: "I've been contemplating that the animal is possibly reptilian in nature. It is considerably larger than any dinosaur I can think of. But is it a dinosaur? Despite my limited knowledge in that area of inquiry, it seems unlikely, for a variety of reasons - but primarily, the condition of the bones suggests a fossil much younger than the Cretaceous Era. It is, based on my understanding of human skeletal remains, possibly even contemporaneous with humans, or at any rate, early hominids. And yet, that is impossible." <br><br>This follows the discovery of something wierd on the coast of India following the Tsunami, which has been described as the remains of some creature:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://giantology.typepad.com/giantology/2005/10/giant_creature_.html">giantology.typepad.com/gi...ture_.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I recall that the Tsumani also revealed some man-made structures along the coast of India but am not sure if this is the same thing with a different interpretation or seperate.<br>mx <p></p><i></i>

[nashvillebrook]

about giant creatures -- "dragons" -- etc. in the absence of a living specimen, there might be clues in legends and history. it's very interesting stuff to say the least. <br><br>i really don't understand the controversy over mysterious achaeological finds. if our assumptions are challenged by the appearance of new data, then we can modify our assumptions to accomodate the new info. that's what scientists are supposed to do. follow the data. it's irrational to dismiss conterexamples to the dominant myth just because they "don't fit," yet. <br><br>plus, you gotta figure stories about dragons and such had to come from something etched in reality. stories seldom come out of nowhere. in every myth there's a bit a truth. this is exciting stuff. i wanna be an archaeologist! but i'm totally ill-suited to the craft -- too impatient. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Looks to me like this thing could have given a T. Rex a piggy back ride. Wonder why there's not more on it? I'd think one press release and he'd have all the funding he'd need. <p></p><i></i>

[OnoI812]

The dragon skeleton is pretty cool...<br><br>but here's another way cool link from the Indian site<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4313978.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...313978.stm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/americas_enl_1128575604/html/1.stm" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/americas_enl_1128575604/html/1.stm <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=onoi812>OnoI812</A> at: 10/13/05 2:11 pm<br></i>

[banned]

....seem to exist in many cultures--reptilian creatures that fly, or live under water in the case of the Chinese water dragon, and sometimes emit fire from their mouths. I have often thought that there must have been a real creature that inspired the mythic one, since it is so widespread, but I could never figure out what the 'fire-breathing' part could have been. However, don't some reptiles squirt out poisonous venom? Maybe there were large flying reptiles that when attacked would shoot out a caustic substance that 'burned' their attackers.<br><br>I'm a triple dragon in Chinese astrology, hence my interest in them! <p></p><i></i>

[orz]

That video clip is very obviously fake. Dunno if it's a viral ad for a videogame/movie/something, or just someone messing about, but the shots including the large skeletons are definitely digitally composited and not even particularly convincingly at that.<br><br>I'll have to find out more about those ruins that were supposedly found though... interesting stuff...<br><br>I haven't yet got round to reading Graham Hancock's 'Underworld' which is about underwater ancient ruins and would seem to tie in with this kind of thing.<br><br>Also the pics on that paleoshilling.nl site look pretty photoshopped to me... it's hard to tell with small, compressed images but from first glance they just struck me as photoshop. Especially the large vertebre in the first photo. His site is otherwise pretty sparse, so i wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing is fake... or maybe he's really an archaeologist but this page is a prank.... <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=orz@rigorousintuition>orz</A> at: 10/13/05 3:40 pm<br></i>

[nashvillebrook]

yeah, that's there. but i don't see any evidence of collage in the paleoschilling image. could you be more specific? what do you see?<br><br>at 300% the "seams" along the ribs show no evidence of blurring or compositing. the shadows are where they should be and the whole thing appears to be a flat photo. <p></p><i></i>

[orz]

More specific? It just looks totally fake! <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> ... the vertebre in the background especially look almost painted on, + are very low contrast compared to the harsh shadows of other parts of the rocks etc.<br><br>The lower picture looks pretty photoshoppy also... the greenish 'bones' look like they've been digitally painted over a photo presumably of a more conventional dig...<br><br>I'll admit it can be hard to tell from small JPEGs quite what has been done to an image one way or another, but it just doesn't look at all real to me. I wish it was tho! <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>In addition, for what it's worth, google:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Your search - "Casper Shilling" iran archaelologist - did not match any documents.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>(without 'iran' it gives one link... his own site)<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Your search - "Casper Shilling" Paleopathologist - did not match any documents. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[nashvillebrook]

nothing except Unsharp Mask which is a perfectly reasonable method of preparing a jpeg for small use. i see no evidence of airbrushing or layering. the pixels are completely continuous. <br><br>maybe he made the bones like a theater set and took a photo -- but this image is not a photoshop construction. <p></p><i></i>

[orz]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> i see no evidence of airbrushing or layering. the pixels are completely continuous. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Not sure what you mean by 'completely continuous'?<br><br>I don't really see what you could achieve by zooming in in photoshop?... I can see evidence of it being fake at 100%! <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>There's no reason for a well faked image to show "evidence of airbrushing or layering" of a sort that would be evident in a low resolution, heavily compressed image... and most of the original pixel information is totally mangled by JPEG anyway.<br><br>I'm looking at the broader picture (literally, haha) and I just think it looks generally unconvincing I'm afraid! <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[glubglubglub]

if he were legit he'd have mentioned where he got his Ph.D, not just the thesis title. Voting fake for the moment. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Comment left on the second site says this:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I'm doing some expat work in India, I live in Chennai which is close to Mahabalipuram - we go there on weekends. This is a hoax. Although there were some quite interesting ancient temples uncovered by the tsunami, no giant creature was discovered.<br><br>URL of temple discovery: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4257181.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south...257181.stm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[orz]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> if he were legit he'd have mentioned where he got his Ph.D, not just the thesis title.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Quite! Also none of the content on his site other than the skeleton is anything but links to general info on other sites.<br><br>Yeah, it's clearly totally fake.<br><br>Wonder if it's just some joker, or more viral marketing like that head-squid thing...?<br><br>The temples <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>actually</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> uncovered by the tsunami are really interesting anyway!!! <p></p><i></i>

[Wombaticus Rex]

yeah, that's there. but i don't see any evidence of collage in the paleoschilling image. could you be more specific? what do you see?<br><br>at 300% the "seams" along the ribs show no evidence of blurring or compositing. the shadows are where they should be and the whole thing appears to be a flat photo. <p></p><i></i>

You're about 10 years behind the curve of most intermediate photoshop users.