jonesthecurl wrote:Viceroy63 wrote:Archaeopteryx was found over a hundred years ago and since then no other samples of this supposedly half bird, half dinosaur was ever found. The only samples in existence were all found only two month apart from each other and by the same person. If that alone is not undeniable and scientific evidence that Archaeopteryx is a Hoax then the perhaps the rest of the evidence mentioned in that article is.
Since then ten specimens have been recovered:
The Berlin Specimen (HMN 1880) was discovered in 1874 or 1875 on the Blumenberg near Eichstätt, Germany, by farmer Jakob Niemeyer. He sold this precious fossil for the money to buy a cow in 1876, to inn-keeper Johann Dörr, who again sold it to Ernst Otto Häberlein, the son of K. Häberlein. Placed on sale between 1877 and 1881, with potential buyers including O. C. Marsh of Yale University's Peabody Museum, it was eventually bought by the Humboldt Museum für Naturkunde, where it is now displayed, for 20,000 Goldmark. The transaction was financed by Ernst Werner von Siemens, founder of the famous company that bears his name.[41] Described in 1884 by Wilhelm Dames, it is the most complete specimen, and the first with a complete head. It was in 1897 named by Dames as a new species, A. siemensii; a recent evaluation supports the A. siemensii species identification.[25]
Cast of the Maxberg Specimen
Composed of a torso, the Maxberg Specimen (S5) was discovered in 1956 near Langenaltheim; it was brought to the attention of professor Florian Heller in 1958 and described by him in 1959. It is currently missing, though it was once exhibited at the Maxberg Museum in Solnhofen. It belonged to Eduard Opitsch, who loaned it to the museum until 1974. After his death in 1991, the specimen was discovered to be missing and may have been stolen or sold. The specimen is missing its head and tail, although the rest of the skeleton is mostly intact.
Slab of the Haarlem Specimen
The Haarlem Specimen (TM 6428, also known as the Teyler Specimen) was discovered in 1855 near Riedenburg, Germany, and described as a Pterodactylus crassipes in 1857 by von Meyer. It was reclassified in 1970 by John Ostrom and is currently located at the Teylers Museum in Haarlem, Netherlands. It was the very first specimen, despite the classification error. It is also one of the least complete specimens, consisting mostly of limb bones and isolated cervical vertebrae and ribs.
The Eichstätt Specimen (JM 2257) was discovered in 1951 near Workerszell, Germany and described by Peter Wellnhofer in 1974. Currently located at the Jura Museum in Eichstätt, Germany, it is the smallest specimen and has the second best head. It is possibly a separate genus (Jurapteryx recurva) or species (A. recurva).
The Solnhofen Specimen (BSP 1999) was discovered in the 1970s near Eichstätt, Germany, and described in 1988 by Wellnhofer. Currently located at the Bürgermeister-Müller-Museum in Solnhofen, it was originally classified as Compsognathus by an amateur collector, the same burgomaster Friedrich Müller after which the museum is named. It is the largest specimen known and may belong to a separate genus and species, Wellnhoferia grandis. It is missing only portions of the neck, tail, backbone, and head.
The Munich Specimen (S6, formerly known as the Solnhofen-Aktien-Verein Specimen) was discovered on 3 August 1992 near Langenaltheim and described in 1993 by Wellnhofer. It is currently located at the Paläontologisches Museum München in Munich, to which it was sold in 1999 for 1.9 million Deutschmark. What was initially believed to be a bony sternum turned out to be part of the coracoid,[53] but a cartilaginous sternum may have been present. Only the front of its face is missing. It may be a new species, A. bavarica.
Daiting Specimen
An eighth, fragmentary specimen was discovered in 1990, not in Solnhofen limestone, but in somewhat younger sediments at Daiting, Suevia. It is therefore known as the Daiting Specimen, and had been known since 1996 only from a cast, briefly shown at the Naturkundemuseum in Bamberg. Long remaining hidden and therefore dubbed the 'Phantom', the original was purchased by palaeontologist Raimund Albertsdörfer in 2009.[54] It was on display for the first time with six other original fossils of Archaeopteryx at the Munich Mineral Show in October 2009.[55] A first, quick look by scientists indicates that this specimen might represent a new species of Archaeopteryx.[56] It was found in a limestone bed that was a few hundred thousand years younger than the other finds.[54]
Bürgermeister-Müller ("chicken wing") Specimen
Another fragmentary fossil was found in 2000. It is in private possession and since 2004 on loan to the Bürgermeister-Müller Museum in Solenhofen, so it is called the Bürgermeister-Müller Specimen; the institute itself officially refers to it as the "Exemplar of the families Ottman & Steil, Solnhofen". As the fragment represents the remains of a single wing of Archaeopteryx, the popular name of this fossil is "chicken wing".
Long in a private collection in Switzerland, the Thermopolis Specimen (WDC CSG 100) was discovered in Bavaria and described in 2005 by Mayr, Pohl, and Peters. Donated to the Wyoming Dinosaur Center in Thermopolis, Wyoming, it has the best-preserved head and feet; most of the neck and the lower jaw have not been preserved. The "Thermopolis" specimen was described in the December 2, 2005 Science journal article as "A well-preserved Archaeopteryx specimen with theropod features"; it shows that the Archaeopteryx lacked a reversed toe — a universal feature of birds — limiting its ability to perch on branches and implying a terrestrial or trunk-climbing lifestyle.[57] This has been interpreted as evidence of theropod ancestry. In 1988, Gregory S. Paul claimed to have found evidence of a hyperextensible second toe, but this was not verified and accepted by other scientists until the Thermopolis specimen was described.[58] "Until now, the feature was thought to belong only to the species' close relatives, the deinonychosaurs."[59]
The Thermopolis Specimen was assigned to Archaeopteryx siemensii in 2007.[60] The specimen itself, currently on loan to the Royal Tyrrell Museum, Drumheller, Alberta, Canada, is considered the most complete and well preserved Archaeopteryx remains yet.[60]
The eleventh specimen
In 2011 the discovery of an eleventh specimen was announced. It is said to be one of the more complete specimens, but is missing the skull and one forelimb. It is privately owned and has yet to be given a name or described scientifically.[61][62]
Jones; The articles covers all of that. These are not Archaeopteryx. You are only confusing the issue by not reading the article. All of those supposedly Archaeopteryx sample were thought to originally have been Compsognathus. Compsognathus is a Dinosaur but Archaeopteryx is a supposedly fully developed bird. What had happened is that they began to reclassify Compsognathus as Archaeopteryx after the Original Hoax in order to perpetuate that belief that Evolution had occurred. But just changing the name of a finding or reclassifying after the facts does not make it so.
See how I went through your Darwinist article attempting to show that Archaeopteryx is not a hoax. Still it remains, that what is considered to be a fully formed Bird by the scientific community BECAUSE of the feathers which are highly developed like modern bird feathers and in dispute as to their authenticity, while the Compsognathus is a dinosaur from the Jurassic Period. If you only read the Darwinist propaganda then you have your answer but if you want to know the truth then really try to read the article and the points they make and refute those points instead of posting Darwinist Propaganda.
Another source which also raises some interesting questions is...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ117.htmlI'll tell you right now that it is a some what long article with an awful lot of reading, especially for a fixed and closed mind to absorb but it does go into a lot of details in the question about What is the Archaeopteryx?
But consider this question; Why is it that when it comes to Archaeopteryx there is suddenly, "A New Genus" or type or branching out from the original, as if to say, "See, Evolution is true! It does happen." Where with all other Dinosaur finds there is no such reclassifying of types of Dinosaurs or, "New Genuses" found? Why is that? Or show me that there are more than one type of Genus or Gene Pool showing the evolution for T-Rex which goes by a different Scientific term but is still only one kind of T-Rex. Or any other dinosaur? They are all fully formed and developed creatures with no indication of any type of intermediary species either before or after but suddenly with Archaeopteryx, Watch Out Now; We have a hundred different types are this bird depending on who finds it and where and when? HUH???
Anyone who is interested in this will find this interesting as well...
This article can be read in it's entirety at...
http://tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.htmlThis is only an excerpt from the article itself.
THE ULTIMATE HOAX: ARCHAEOPTERYX LITHOGRAPHICAby Ian Taylor
Textbooks sometimes speak of "many other examples" and by this is meant: A poorly preserved specimen discovered in 1956 assigned by Heller as an Archaeopteryx and known as the Maxberg Specimen [11]; it remains in a private collection. A specimen discovered in 1855 and classified as a pterosaur by the Teyer Museum until 1970 when it was reclassified as an Archaeopteryx by Ostrom; it is referred to as the Haarlem Specimen [12]. A specimen discovered in 1951 and classified as a Compsognathus longipes reclassified by Mayr in 1973 as an Archaeopteryx and known today as the Eichstatt Specimen [13]. The most recent specimen was "discovered" in a private collection and classified by Wellnhofer in 1988 as an Archaeopteryx; it is referred to as the Solnhofen Specimen [14]. It is to be emphasized that none of these last four specimens show feather impressions. More will be said of this later. The great bird expert, Professor Ostrom, writing before the 1988 specimen was assigned said of these latest specimens:
...these specimens are not particularly like modern birds at all. If feather impressions had not been preserved in the London and Berlin specimens, they [the Maxberg, Haarlem and Eichstatt specimens] would never have been identified as birds...notice [they] were all misidentified at first, and the Eichstatt Specimen for 20 years was thought to be a small specimen of the dinosaur Compsognathus [15].
The six specimens of Archaeopteryx lithographica, together with the feather reported by Herman von Meyer, are summarized in table 1. The first column gives the date on which disclosure was made.
TABLE 1
Archaeopteryx lithographica
1860 Single feather referred to as von Meyer's.
1861 London Specimen found at Solnhofen.
1877 Berlin Specimen found at Solnhofen.
1956 Maxberg Specimen assigned as Archaeopteryx.
1970 1855 Haarlem Specimen (pterosaur) re-assigned.
1973 1951 Eichstadt Compsognathus re-assigned.
1988 Solnhofen Specimen assigned as Archaeopteryx.
THE CHARGE OF FRAUDDr. Lee Spetner of the Weizman Institute, Israel, long suspected that the London specimen was a fake and eventually persuaded the British Natural History Museum authorities to let him examine the actual specimen. Museum specimens of the calibre of the Archaeopteryx are securely squirreled away in vaults only accessible to the eye of certified believers; the public sees a mere plaster copy. British scientist Sir Fred Hoyle had also expressed reservations about the London specimen's authenticity and Dr. Spetner invited him to co-operate in the examination of this fossil. Just before Christmas 1984 the precious artifact was exposed, perhaps for the first time in this century, to the skeptical eye of unbelievers. To forestall charges of fraud, an International Archaeo Archaeopteryx Conference had been held at Eichstatt just three months earlier where 80 of the faithful had gathered but they were denied the chance to see either the London or the Berlin specimens; the London Specimen was claimed to be "too fragile to travel" and the Berlin Specimen was said to be "in Japan" [16].
During Spetner and Hoyle's examination physical contact was not permitted but a great many photographs were taken using techniques intended to highlight the contours. This was important because the surface upon which the fossil impression lies is three dimensional; published photographs leave the viewer with the impression that the fossil lies on a two-dimensional plane. The results were most revealing but when it came to publication the ranks and hinds of the scientific press were solidly closed! In the end, Hoyle and Spetner and their associates published their findings in a series of photographic articles in The British Journal of Photography [17-20]. The charges led to counter-charges by Alan Charig and others of the British Museum [21]. In the meantime, the public press, reminded of the Piltdown affair at the same museum in 1953, smelled the makings of another scandal and eagerly fanned the flames of contention. Sir Fred Hoyle quickly published a little book containing some very interesting photographs and documentation of the charges and counter-charges [22]. Finally, in late 1987, the museum put their most famous fossil on display with a list of rebuttals to the charges of hoax in an attempt to regain the public confidence. From that day to this the public had heard nothing more of the debacle.
Hoyle and Spetner concluded that the London Specimen was actually a genuine fossil of the Compsognathus, an extinct reptile, to which had been added the impressions of modern feathers. Hoyle suggested that the forgers had spread a mixture of finely ground limestone and gum arabic thinly across the wing and tail areas then pressed modern feathers into this mixture. The feathers were removed after the cement had completely hardened [23]. They also suggested that the first discovery, the von Meyer specimen, had been produced in the same way and pointed out that the texture of the slab and counter-slab were not the same as would be expected from a genuine fossil. It would seem that this would provide a very good reason for the forgers to have sold the two halves to separate museums [24]. Fossil forgery was not a new thing to the enterprising quarry owners of Solnhofen; Wendt shows for example that a fossil forgery business had flourished at Ohningen just 120 miles from Solnhofen for over a century [25].
The London Specimen is unique in having an oversized furcula or wish-bone which is found in birds but not usually in reptiles. Indeed, it is the feather impressions and the furcula which give this fossil its avian status. However, in a paper communicated to the Royal Society in 1868, T.H. Huxley not only doubted that it was a furcula but declared it to be "conspicuous" and "bouleversement" or up-side-down. He then gleefully showed how this had completely confused his rival, the great Richard Owen in his description of the fossil [26]. In the same paper Huxley concluded:
In fact, in its form, and strength relatively to the shoulder girdle, the so-called "furculum" appears to me to be the greatest osteological difficulty presented by Archaeopteryx. [27]
Hoyle's suspicions regarding the furcula centered upon the corresponding cavity in the counter-slab which appears to be insufficient to contain the prominent furcula. He suggested that the forgers had added a crude furcula then attempted to excavate a cavity in the counter-slab to get it to fit [28). However, a recent profile analysis has shown that there is, in fact, a perfect fit but detailed discussion of the feathers, furcula and other bones from all specimens will follow later. At this point a list of the principal evidences for hoax and the museum rebuttals will be given:
a )The tail lies at the bottom of a depression in the surface of the slab and there is no corresponding raised area in the counter-slab. Hoyle maintained that when originally split the tail lay beneath the surface of the slab but the forgers excavated around the tail bone, back-filled part of the way with a cement of finely ground limestone and gum arabic, then set feathers in place so as to leave the impressions. Hoyle mistakenly refers to the tail area as "the tail feather" but of course the impressions consist of a number of feathers, two to each bone in the vertebrae. The museum maintains that it was scientists at the museum who removed some rock from the slab to reveal the tail feathers. However, if this was the case then it must have been carried out by Richard Owen's staff prior to his 1864 publication [5]. This contains an excellent engraving of the slab complete with every tail feather as it is today but Owen mentioned nothing of any excavation work.
b)The feather impressions mostly appear on the slab and not on the counter-slab except for one tiny piece described by Hoyle as 'gum-like'; when analysed it showed traces of foreign substances. Hoyle's photograph of this piece showed that it has feather impressions, but the museum's explanation fails to mention this and simply says that the foreign substances probably came from mould-making or the sealer which has been applied to the surface. Neither explanation would account for the feather impressions. Hoyle's supposition that the thin layer of 'cement' spread on the counter-slab by the forgers did not 'take' but fell off except for the one isolated 'gum-like' piece appears to be the more probable explanation [29].
c)The museum granted Spetner two very small samples of the fossil surface; one from the "wing" area and the other as a control remote from the "wing" area. A scanning electron microscope analysis carried out at the Weizman Institute showed that the control sample was clean crystalline limestone as one would expect but that from the "wing" area was amorphous; X-ray luminescence analysis revealed that it had a strange composition. Suspicions that it was indeed the glue and limestone mixture which had been suggested, were close to being confirmed. Yet another sample was necessary to be sure the first sample was truly representative and not an artifact. The museum refused all further testing [30].
d)Hoyle and his associates (but not Spetner) suggested that Richard Owen knew that the fossil was a forgery when he purchased it [20]. Hoyle argued that Owen was a creationist (untrue) and his intention was to expose it as a fraud after Darwin had accepted it and thus discredit Darwin and especially Huxley and the theory of evolution. However, this was an unfortunate piece of speculation which Gould has taken great delight in showing to be totally untrue [31].
The museum's prime evidences for the fossil being genuine are:
e)There are hairline cracks in the feathered areas which match exactly on the slab and the counter-slab. These cracks are filled with natural crystals and so must have been in the slab before it was split open. Spetner and others have pointed out that when cracks in a wall are plastered over they re-appear as the house settles. The London specimen has indeed received much pounding by the hammer during the past century and removing of the "brain-case" was only one instance when cracks had ample opportunity to propagate through the thin layer of forger's cement.
f)Dendritic patterns, some of which match exactly on the slab and counter-slab, appear to overlie the feather impressions. Dendrites are tree-like growths of dark mineral crystals and take centuries to form. Dr. Spetner shows from his photographs that the dendritic pattern is genuine but does not overlie the feathered area [30] while in private correspondence he more forcefully states that "the matching dendrite claim is simply fraudulent" [31].
So much for the London specimen and the observations of those who have actually examined it in contrast to those defenders of the faith, such as Gould [32], who write from a more distant ivory tower.
This article can be read in it's entirety at...
http://tccsa.tc/articles/hoax.htmlThis is only an excerpt from the article itself.
THE ULTIMATE HOAX: ARCHAEOPTERYX LITHOGRAPHICAby Ian Taylor
