saber-toothed cats, mastodonts and ground sloths replaced dinosaurs

Arctodus

Jedi
One saying of the C's I can't wrap my mind around is the concept of "saber-toothed tigers[cats], mastodons[or was it mammoths?] and ground sloths killing off and replacing the dinosaurs.
I'm only a layman, but I've seen many fossil sites both personally, once in real time, through books and through basic internet/flickerphotos showing loads of Cenozoic deposits. Aside from *neornithine birds, no dinosaurs are present in any convincing numbers.

*the Lithornithiformes may have been a surviving sister group to modern neornithines. They died out by the late Eocene.

It is certainly possible that dinosaurs survived into the Paleocene, a lot of fossil teeth and some bones are fairly common in Paleocene deposits up until 60 mya, then they become much rarer, finally disappearing by 55 mya. However, they are usually regarded as "re-worked" fossils since there is only one case of a possible "associated" fossil of some 36 bones some one million years after the K/Pa extinction event. It is certainly possible that non-avian dinosaurs made it past 65** mya but they don't seem to have made it past 55 mya.

**I know, the C's say 27 mya, okay, that is just...odd.

Anyways, by 60 mya (or roughly 25-23mya according to the C's) the first proboscidean *Eritherium* a rabbit sized critter appears. The first sloths and the first felines....well, who knows, they don't really appear until well into the Eocene, around 45 to 40 myas. Like the proboscideans, sloths and felids were rather small critters for a large portion of their history. Proboscideans became fairly large animals around 35 myas, sloths around 20 myas and felids around 10 myas.

This is rather hard to wrap my mind around. The Cenozoic is just chock full of strange mammals, reptiles and other critters that simply do not have modern descendants.
 
Arctodus said:
One saying of the C's I can't wrap my mind around is the concept of "saber-toothed tigers[cats], mastodons[or was it mammoths?] and ground sloths killing off and replacing the dinosaurs.
I'm only a layman, but I've seen many fossil sites both personally, once in real time, through books and through basic internet/flickerphotos showing loads of Cenozoic deposits. Aside from *neornithine birds, no dinosaurs are present in any convincing numbers.

:huh: This is not what I remember reading. I think you are mixing things together. Could you reference the above to a link so that I may read what you are interpreting? I did a quick search through the forum, and a site search on Cass.org but can't find anything relating to mastodons or mammoths etc. wiping out dinosaurs.

If I am recalling correctly, I think what you may be referring to a question about a certain catastrophe where the questioner assumed it was one that had killed of the dinosaurs , and the C's replied that it was the mastodons, mammoths etc that were killed off in this particular catastrophe, not the dinosaurs.

It may be that I interpreted it wrong, but I would have to re-read that portion of the transcript, so if you could please post a link? ;)
 
here is a link to shijing's Atlantis post

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=14160.msg108912

"Q: (L) And you said that the “flood of Noah” was the story of the final deluge and destruction of Atlantis?
A: Yes.

Q: (L) And that was caused by what?
A: Venus.

Q: (L) I thought you said it was caused by Martek?
A: Yes.

Q: (L) Well, how can it be caused by Venus if it was caused by Martek?
A: Venus also “caused” Martek.

Q: (L) Was this the time of the major dying of the large dinosaurs?
A: Close.

Q: (L) What event transpired to kill off most of the dinosaurs?
A: Beasts. [i.e. not dinosaurs]

Q: (L) What kind of beasts?
A: Mastodon, sabertooth tiger, giant sloth, etc."

The 27 mya extinction of dinosaurs comes from here, a C's Timeline

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=13920.msg106057#msg106057

It's rather hard to reconcile the two statements IMO. I don't know, maybe the C's have an explanation? Am I missing something here?
 
Hi Arctodus --

I think the problem you are having is actually due to a misparsing of the transcript when you read it (which can happen easily in some cases, and I have had to re-read something a couple of times myself in the past before I realized that I parsed it wrong). Here is where the hang-up is I think:

Arctodus said:
Q: (L) Was this the time of the major dying of the large dinosaurs?
A: Close.

Q: (L) What event transpired to kill off most of the dinosaurs?
A: Beasts. [i.e. not dinosaurs]

Q: (L) What kind of beasts?
A: Mastodon, sabertooth tiger, giant sloth, etc."

In this excerpt, I believe there is a time-lag in that the C's were in the middle of answering the first question when the second question was asked, and they didn't actually answer the second question because they were still in the middle of answering the first. I think the proper way to read this is like so (and remember the bracketed part is my own note, and wasn't part of the original session):

Q: (L) Was this the time of the major dying of the large dinosaurs?
A: Close. Beasts. [i.e. not dinosaurs]

Q: (L) What kind of beasts?
A: Mastodon, sabertooth tiger, giant sloth, etc.

So I don't think that the C's were saying that mastodons, sabertooths and sloths killed off the dinosaurs -- they were making a correction that the time period in question was the time when these mammals (and not the dinosaurs) all went extinct -- the time period of the dinosaur extinction (27 million years ago if you check the timeline) was a separate and completely unrelated event. Hope this helps!
 
Thank you Shijing. That section of your Atlantis post was extremely confusing to me but now that you explain it, I'm having a Homer Simpson moment (D'oh!)

The concept of non-neornithine dinosaurs dying out 27 million years ago is a bit of a wow moment. That is less than half the mainstream timeline.
 
Arctodus said:
Thank you Shijing. That section of your Atlantis post was extremely confusing to me but now that you explain it, I'm having a Homer Simpson moment (D'oh!)

That's good to know -- when I have time, I might try to review it and see if I can make it a bit more transparent.

Arctodus said:
The concept of non-neornithine dinosaurs dying out 27 million years ago is a bit of a wow moment. That is less than half the mainstream timeline.

If you go to that part of the transcripts, I think that Laura had the same reaction the first time that information was given (I believe it was given once and repeated once more at a later date, if I remember correctly). So yes, that's a big deal, and relates at least partly to the fallibility of current carbon-dating techniques, although there may be more involved.
 
shijing said:
Arctodus said:
Thank you Shijing. That section of your Atlantis post was extremely confusing to me but now that you explain it, I'm having a Homer Simpson moment (D'oh!)

That's good to know -- when I have time, I might try to review it and see if I can make it a bit more transparent.

There are actually more than a few such occasions. We weren't very patient at the beginning. Even now, the Cs will sometimes interrupt with additional info after we have already moved on to the next question but now there is sufficient energy for them to make it clear. In the beginning, every session took a LOT of energy.

Arctodus said:
The concept of non-neornithine dinosaurs dying out 27 million years ago is a bit of a wow moment. That is less than half the mainstream timeline.

If you go to that part of the transcripts, I think that Laura had the same reaction the first time that information was given (I believe it was given once and repeated once more at a later date, if I remember correctly). So yes, that's a big deal, and relates at least partly to the fallibility of current carbon-dating techniques, although there may be more involved.

Yes, we kept coming up against that problem again and again and, since I had read Firestone and Topping's work on RC dating being so off, I had formed a little theory about it which Ark asked about on 3 July 99:

Q: (A) Carbon dating. Is it incorrect by a factor of two prior to 10,000 years as L has suggested? We observe a factor of 2 variation in the scientific dating versus your dating. This is a repeating phenomenon on nearly all dates you have given.

A: "They" fail to take into effect the influence of magnetic aberrations caused by ancient cataclysms.

Q: (L) How can these magnetic aberrations affect radiocarbon dating?

A: By altering the isotopal imprints of matter.

Q: So, the cataclysm of about 1500 B.C....

A: All of them scramble the radiological data because of magnetic surges.
 
Also have a look at two items from sott that I posted on the forum this morning:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=14640.0
 
Back
Top Bottom