Dinosaurs, Birds, and Aussies? - UPDATED

1. Scientists from Emory University in Georgia (USA) claim to have found bird fossils in Australia.
2. They claim these fossils are contemporary with others of standard dinosaurs.
3. They further claim that these fossils are evidence of birds having landed in soft rock or sand which then hardened, retaining the "footprints" of the purported avians.

How reasonable is it to believe that a bunch of guys from Georgia would take a trip to Australia and end up finding fossilized bird footprints at the beach? Australia (and New Zealand, a similar and nearby island nation) are home to flightless birds such as the emu and the kiwi, and these "scientists" want us to believe they've found tracks that are "remarkably similar to those in the sands and muds of the Georgia coast, made daily by the herons, egrets, and shorebirds."

When will these scientists release the results of the soil composition tests?
When will they release full-size castings of the "feet" which supposedly made these tracks?
When will they admit that birds large enough to have left these tracks would have left other evidence as well?

It seems more likely that these are either much more recent tracks of current era birds, or that these are actually the tracks of the beings who taught the Australian Aboriginal peoples to make the strange, Nazca-like figures in the deserts of the island continent. Why no mention of either of these much more likely, Occam-approved possibilities? Perhaps government funding is involved, and dinosaur-age birds are on the green-lighted list, while Aboriginal Alien Encounters are not to be publicized!

We'll continue to investigate and report back when we have even more facts.

UPDATE:
Now we hear that a new species of humpback dolphin has been identified off the coasts of Australia (no word on whether they sport near New Zealand at this point). See here for the detailed report: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mec.12535/abstract
Can we really be expected to believe that this is purely a coincidence?
Do they really think us that gullible?
Stay tuned for more updates as they become available.

Posted by Listener 43

Related Posts:

The Colonel and Area 51
SETI and Timing
Pyramids and Satellites
Dynamite and Denial
Who Is Using All That Water?
Radiation and Crop Circles
Nazca Lines and Antimatter
SETI @ Home Is Back
Russians, Asteroids, and Mars
Water, Mars, Saturn, and Technocrats
Are Russian Space Troubles From Beyond Mars?
More Mars-Related Deception
Mars and Water - Again!
Ages In Chaos?
Successful SETI Experiment!
Mutant Monkey Flowers And Triffids
NASA, Mars, and Nazca Lines

Occam and Lunatics

1. The Moon is tidally locked to the Earth in its rotation - the same side always faces the Earth.
2. The near side the Moon is relatively low and flat.
3. The far side of the Moon is high and mountainous, with a thicker crust and far more impact craters.
4. Therefore, there must have been another, smaller moon at some time which crashed into the Moon we know and love, causing the differences in the two faces.

This is the line of "reasoning" behind a recent hypothesis presented in Nature magazine. It seems apparent that Nature has lost much of its former luster, moving from testable hypotheses to SyFy scenarios in its pages. Clearly there's been no thought given to the idea that the side facing out might be hit more by meteors and asteroids. Bodies passing between the Earth and the Moon stand a good chance of being attracted to the much larger of the two - the Earth - and bypassing the smaller.

Have none of today's hypothesticians (I find it hard to call them theorists) ever heard of Occam's Razor? There is no reason to add a new moon to the system, when all data has already been explained in a simpler way. Once again, it seems we have supposed scientists creating scenarios in order to garner attention and - they would hope - funding for further research.

Posted by Procrustes 17

Related Posts:

Semantics, Not Science

Travels in Space and Time

CERN, Cosmic Rays, and Cover-Ups

Radiation and Antibiotics