RE: Dinosaur Hoaxes

[Jaime Headden <qi_leong@hotmail.com>]

  It may be inapproproate to construe some of these as "hoaxes." the word is 
charged, and given the political nature of both modern and past hoaxes, can 
cause the word to carry its meaning away from what actually happened with the 
material, or imply that the circumstances of the material in question implicate 
all involved as "hoaxers." In the case of "Archaeoraptor," virtually none of 
the persons involved actually believed the material to be falsely construed and 
yet passed it off as such, a distinct difference from the Piltdown hoax, in 
which it is presumed even Sir Doyle was involved knowingly to perpetrate the 
fraud.

  Some things argued to be hoaxes or frauds turned out to be actual artifacts 
mistakenly identified (the Paluxy River tracks of Glen Rose, Texas, some 
idiot's interpretation of the Laetoli australopithecine footprints), while 
others were irregular preservation then modified to allude to a reconstruction 
(*Irritator challenger* was not fully prepared and had a pterosaur snout stuck 
on the end, because the guys actually thought it was a pterosaur, while the 
holotype jaw of *Samrukia nessovi* was implied to be a caenagnathid and both 
mandibular rami were reconstructed as such, but it isn't a caenagnathid, and 
was later interpreted to be avian instead when the material was actually 
published).

  Dozens upon dozens of specimens from Liaoning quarries are mocked up to be 
more complete than they are, by either people who do not know better attempting 
to make their work more appealing in their completeness, or by people who do 
know better simply cutting and pasting to fashion a "whole" element that seems 
"plausible" (the former occurred with "Archaeoraptor" -- the holotype of 
*Microraptor zhaoianus* and *Archaeovolans repatriatus* -- while the latter 
occurred with *Microraptor gui*). Some of these specimens merely combine extra 
partial specimens of *Confuciusornis sanctus* or whathaveyou, and now we are 
told they all receive scrutiny to peer through the artifice of collectors 
"fixing them up."

  "Eggs" are often concretions passed off as real eggs, but most geologists can 
tell the difference (so I hear), and they are usually used to support the 
impression of having made a find, rather than actually hoaxing anyone into 
believing they are real. That is more a case of self-delusion than deluding 
others.

Cheers,

  Jaime A. Headden
  The Bite Stuff (site v2)
  http://qilong.wordpress.com/

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)


"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a
different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race
has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or
his new way of looking at things." --- Zapp Brannigan (Beast With a Billion 
Backs)


----------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:38:55 -0400
> From: john-schneiderman@cox.net
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Dinosaur Hoaxes
>
> What are the top 10 Dinosaur Hoaxes, Frauds, Chimeras, Forgeries,
> Modified remains, or Misidentifications?
>
> I'm reminded of:
> Archaeopteryx lithographica [considered a hoax from time to time but
> proven not to be]
> Archaeoraptor liaoningensis [construct]
> Irritator challengeri [modified remains]
> Ultrasauros macintoshi [chimera]
> Brontosaurus giganteus
> dinosaur eggs [natural concretions]
>
>
> Steer clear of the Dinosaur/Human coexistence tracks, Dinosaur
> Figurines, Cave paintings and Cryptid sightings and photos. I'm
> interested in those dinosaurs that have made it into scientific
> publication as valid but later discovered to be fraudulent or a hoax.
>
>
> References:
>
>
> http://www.jpaleontologicaltechniques.org/pasta3/JPT%20N2/Pdf/JPT_n002_Jul.pdf
> http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
> http://www.newanimal.org/dinosaurs.htm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/1059825.stm [faked icthyosaur]
>
> http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/arthur-coggeshall-and-star-spangled-dinosaur