A Refutation of Dinosaur Skeptic Counterclaims

Matthew Hunt, Tessa Hughes

Trevor Valle is a paleontologist and educator known for his work in the field of vertebrate paleontology. He has expertise in the study of fossilized bones and the reconstruction of prehistoric animals. Valle has also been involved in science communication and education, aiming to make paleontology more accessible and engaging for the public. In addition to his scientific work, he has appeared in documentaries, television programs, and podcasts to discuss paleontology and share his knowledge with a broader audience. In one such appearance, Trevor Valle and Joe Rogan engaged in a discussion about a video produced by Eric Dubay (Rogan, 2016). Known for his belief in a flat earth, Dubay is also a dinosaur skeptic, and his video examines many topics of interest to those in the counterpaleo movement.

Our responses and analyses are solely directed towards addressing the accusations and claims pertaining to paleontology, fossils, and related matters presented in the referenced content. We do not endorse or support Eric Dubay’s views on flat earth or any other topics unrelated to paleontology. Our responses are offered within the context of the information provided and should not be construed as an endorsement of any broader belief system.

Statements and Accusations

During the interview, Valle offered rebuttals to many of Dubay’s assertions, and made statements criticizing the dinosaur skeptic movement, while advocating for dinosaurs. We will examine several of these statements which supposedly support the existence of dinosaurs.

“Dinosaurs are featured in numerous documentaries, TV shows, and educational programs.”

The prevalence of dinosaurs in various forms of media, including documentaries, TV shows, and educational programs, should be critically examined from a scientific perspective. While it is undeniable that these representations are widespread, it is crucial to consider the motivations and interests of those responsible for creating and promoting such content.

One must acknowledge the potential influence of what has been termed the “Museum Industrial Complex.” This conglomerate of institutions, researchers, and media outlets has a substantial stake in maintaining the established narrative about dinosaurs. Financial interests, institutional reputations, and professional careers are closely tied to the perpetuation of the dinosaur paradigm (Lutoslawski, Bajwa, & Allen, 2023).

However, the ubiquity of dinosaurs in media should not be misconstrued as irrefutable evidence of their existence. Instead, it raises questions about the role of media in shaping public perceptions and its susceptibility to external influence. Scientific inquiry demands critical examination of all available evidence, including alternative perspectives that challenge prevailing narratives (Kunisch, et al, 2023).

In essence, while dinosaurs’ prevalence in media is noteworthy, it should not be conflated with definitive proof. It emphasizes the need for open scientific discourse, free from external pressures, to explore and evaluate various hypotheses related to Earth’s prehistoric history.

“If we are going out and investing all of this money in order to make these fakes and bury them… why are there paleontologists out of a job?”

Just because there are paleontologists out of a job doesn’t necessarily negate the possibility that fossils might be intentionally fabricated and planted. The idea that fossils are manipulated doesn’t imply that every paleontologist is involved or benefits equally. In any large-scale operation, there are typically only a few individuals at the top who manage and profit from it. Meanwhile, the majority of paleontologists may genuinely believe they are conducting legitimate research. They could be unintentionally working with manipulated fossils, as only a select few in prominent positions have access to the full scope of the situation. Therefore, the fact that some paleontologists are facing job challenges doesn’t necessarily contradict the idea that there might be hidden factors at play.

“Why are there museums that have problems getting a budget…?”

This only reinforces the observation that the Museum Industrial Complex appears to exert significant control over the resources and gains within the paleontology and museum sectors (Lutoslawski, Bajwa, & Allen, 2023). Smaller museums may encounter financial difficulties primarily because the Museum Industrial Complex possesses considerable wealth and wields substantial influence over the prevailing narrative. Large sums of funding may be channeled into the development of artificial dinosaur displays, concurrently concealing the actual truth behind these artificially generated creatures (Lipps, 2007).

As a result, the financial challenges experienced by smaller museums can be regarded as a manifestation of a broader agenda orchestrated by influential figures associated with the Museum Industrial Complex. Even Valle admits that “natural history museums are some of the lowest donated-to institutions on the planet.”

“A lot of fossils are found because of construction. If you start digging a road, if you start digging a foundation, you find fossils.”

While it may be true that fossils are sometimes discovered during construction projects, it’s important to clarify that these findings are typically accidental and rare, despite Valle’s insinuation that they are commonplace (Newell, 1959). The serendipitous discovery of fossils during construction is often a result of the excavation process, which can unearth ancient remains that have been buried for thousands or millions of years (Ebach & Smith, 2021).

It is the responsibility of scientists to investigate and document these findings to better understand Earth’s history. While these discoveries are sporadic, it is worth noting that if fossils actually are found during construction, they are typically consistent with the geological context of the area, further substantiating their authenticity (Holland, 1995).

We fully acknowledge that an extensive range of fossils, including those of prehistoric plants and animals, have been discovered and scientifically documented over the years. These fossils provide essential evidence for reconstructing past ecosystems and life forms (Briggs, Evershed, & Lockheart, 2000).

Our inquiry revolves around a specific niche within the field of paleontology: the authenticity and origins of dinosaur fossils. We contend that further examination is warranted to scrutinize the credibility of these particular fossils, given the potential ramifications for our understanding of Earth’s history. While it is undisputed that fossils as a whole are valuable tools for exploring the past, we aim to engage in a critical evaluation of the evidence surrounding dinosaur fossils specifically, seeking answers to questions about their authenticity that have arisen within the scientific community. By acknowledging the potential influence of external powers in the manipulation of dinosaur fossils, we hope to promote an environment where critical examination and scrutiny can occur without preconceived biases or vested interests (Lutoslawski, Bajwa, & Allen, 2023).

It is essential to uphold the principles of scientific inquiry and maintain transparency in the study of Earth’s prehistory. If there is even a hint of manipulation or misrepresentation of evidence, it is our responsibility to explore these possibilities rigorously, as the implications for our understanding of the past and the natural world are substantial. This inquiry is not rooted in denial but rather in a pursuit of scientific integrity and a comprehensive understanding of the fossils that have captivated our imagination for generations.

“Dinosaurs have been found all over the world, in places where people aren’t looking to make a quick buck off of fake bones.”

The argument that dinosaurs have been discovered worldwide doesn’t counter our claims. Studies have recently shown the plausibility of these discoveries as part of a larger narrative constructed by those in control of the paleontological field (Lutoslawski, Bajwa, & Allen, 2023). Such findings can easily be orchestrated and manipulated to create a widespread illusion of dinosaur existence (Rowe, et al, 2001).

Valle suggests the claim of a conspiracy involving thousands of people is unrealistic. Yet it only requires a select few influential individuals within paleontological hierarchy to be privy to the truth while keeping the majority of paleontologists and researchers in the dark. These individuals manipulate research funding, control access to critical sites, and steer the narrative in mainstream paleontology (Lutoslawski, Bajwa, & Allen, 2023). As long as these key figures remain committed to their cause, the rest of the paleontological community may continue their work unknowingly, relying on the information provided by those in positions of authority.

This is not an unusual situation, nor is it conspiratorial. In the realm of business, the dynamics between executives and their subordinates often involve a hierarchical structure where executives hold significant knowledge and decision-making authority. This power dynamic can sometimes lead to a situation where executives choose to withhold information, expecting their underlings to execute tasks without probing too deeply (Hill & Yablon, 2002).

The rationale behind executives keeping information from others can vary. Some executives may believe that certain information is best handled at the top level due to its sensitivity or potential impact on the organization. Others may see it as a way to maintain a strategic advantage or control the narrative surrounding certain business moves (Daft, Bettenhausen, & Tyler, 1993).

This approach reduces the need for an extensive network of conspirators, making the deception more manageable. It aligns with the idea that only a handful of decision-makers hold the power to shape the field’s direction and maintain the dinosaur deception.

“Why does somebody like me… have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet?”

The personal financial struggles of individual paleontologists within the field don’t invalidate our claims. If the Museum Industrial Complex is indeed controlling the gains, we have shown they could easily ensure that only a select few are privy to significant financial benefits while the majority, like Valle, are left grappling with financial hardships.

The reported figures on paleontologist salaries are indeed intriguing. According to available data, the average paleontologist earns approximately $98,692, with the highest-earning paleontologists reportedly making as much as $388,053 (Comparably, 2024).

From the perspective of those who question the authenticity of dinosaurs, these figures can raise eyebrows. Critics argue that such high salaries may appear disproportionate when considering the ongoing debate surrounding scientific integrity (Kwiek, 2019).

The core issue is whether the work carried out by paleontologists justifies these salary levels. Some argue that the allocation of significant resources to a field that they believe is based on unproven assumptions may not be warranted (Kwiek, 2019).

While these figures reflect reported salaries, it’s essential to recognize that debates over paleontology extend far beyond the financial aspect. The question of whether dinosaurs existed and the scientific consensus around their existence remains a complex and contentious topic, one that goes beyond monetary compensation (Harmon, 2023).

“Scientific papers and peer-reviewed research support the existence of dinosaurs.”

It’s worth noting that there’s a growing body of research outside of the mainstream academic journals, such as The Journal of Antipaleontological Studies, which provides alternative perspectives on the existence of dinosaurs. These journals allow for the exploration of unconventional theories that may challenge the prevailing narrative. While some may dismiss these sources as fringe or unscientific, we should keep an open mind and consider the possibility that there’s more to the story than what’s presented in mainstream publications.

Furthermore, the idea that scientific papers and peer-reviewed research overwhelmingly support the existence of dinosaurs does not tell the whole story. In a world where the Museum Industrial Complex exerts significant influence over academia and research, particularly as it pertains to dinosaur science, it’s crucial to consider potential biases (Lutoslawski, Bajwa, & Allen, 2023). Are these papers truly the result of impartial scientific inquiry, or are they influenced by those with a vested interest in maintaining the dinosaur narrative? Skepticism is a healthy part of the scientific process, and questioning the status quo is essential for advancing our understanding of the past.

Other Tactics

Association with Conspiracies

The mainstream defenders of so-called “established science” often like to lump anti-dinosaur conspiracies with flat Earth and moon landing denial as if they are all cut from the same skeptical cloth. But let’s be clear: while we question the official narratives on dinosaurs, we are not denying the fundamental principles of science like gravity or the shape of the Earth.

Flat Earth Theory: Flat Earthers assert that the Earth is flat, rejecting centuries of scientific evidence supporting a spherical planet. They challenge the Earth’s curvature and its shape as understood by conventional science. In contrast, our skepticism centers on paleontology, specifically raising concerns about the accuracy of certain dinosaur fossils and findings. Our inquiries pertain to paleontological matters, not the fundamental nature of our planet.

Moon Landing Hoax Theory: Moon landing conspiracists contend that NASA staged the moon landings and that they never occurred. They dismiss overwhelming evidence supporting the authenticity of those missions. Our position, on the other hand, focuses on paleontological issues, where we question the validity of dinosaur discoveries (Harmon, 2023). Our scrutiny does not extend to challenging established physics or space exploration.

Skeptics of dinosaur claims are primarily concerned with specific aspects of paleontology and the credibility of particular findings. Our skepticism within this domain should not be misconstrued as a wholesale rejection of well-established scientific facts.

Cherry-Picking Evidence

Valle asserts that Dubay cherry-picks evidence to support his claims, suggesting that he selectively chooses information that fits his narrative while ignoring contradictory evidence. This evidence is, in itself, an example of the pot calling the kettle black. Let’s examine this claim from a different perspective:

Selective Fossil Finds: Advocates for the mainstream dinosaur narrative often rely on selective fossil finds to confirm their beliefs. They highlight specific discoveries that align with their preconceived notions of dinosaur existence while downplaying or dismissing findings that challenge this view. This selective emphasis raises questions about their commitment to objective analysis.

Homogenous Interpretation: Similarly, proponents of the dinosaur narrative tend to interpret evidence in a way that reinforces their established paradigm. They insist that fossils must be linked to dinosaurs rather than exploring alternative possibilities. This insistence on a homogenous interpretation limits the scope of scientific inquiry and discourages exploration of alternative hypotheses.

Ignoring Anomalies: The mainstream narrative often ignores or explains away anomalies and inconsistencies in the fossil record. They contend that these anomalies are conveniently brushed aside to preserve the status quo. This approach can hinder scientific progress by stifling curiosity and open inquiry.

Incentives for Conformity: The academic and professional incentives within the paleontological community may discourage scientists from exploring alternative theories. Critics argue that conformity to the established narrative is rewarded, while dissenting voices face challenges and skepticism.

The accusation of cherry-picking evidence should be examined within the broader context of scientific inquiry. Both sides of the debate may have instances where they emphasize certain evidence while downplaying or dismissing contradictory findings. It is essential to promote open-mindedness, transparency, and the pursuit of truth in all scientific investigations, including those related to the existence of dinosaurs.

Generalization

It’s easy to create a caricature of the dinosaur skeptic movement and apply that to all skeptics, failing to recognize that there’s a significant diversity of views within the counterpaleo camp. Valle suggests that Dubay engages in a generalization fallacy himself by making sweeping claims about all paleontologists, museums, and the field of paleontology based on his suspicions or beliefs. While it’s essential to avoid broad generalizations, it’s also vital to examine whether this accusation stands up to scrutiny from an anti-dinosaur perspective.

Within the field of paleontology, there is a diversity of opinions and perspectives. However, the mainstream narrative, as presented by the majority, often overshadows dissenting voices, and there is societal and professional pressure for paleontologists to conform to the dominant narrative, making it difficult for those with alternative viewpoints to be heard. Dubay’s claims may aim to shed light on this discrepancy and emphasize the importance of considering alternative viewpoints.

Dubay’s arguments may be interpreted as addressing the public’s perception of paleontology, which often presents a unified front on the existence of dinosaurs. By critiquing this portrayal, he may intend to encourage a more detailed understanding of the field. It is crucial to foster an environment of open discourse within any scientific discipline. Accusations of generalization should not deter individuals from questioning prevailing theories and exploring alternative hypotheses. Dubay’s arguments, rather than generalizing, encourage this vital scientific process.

While it’s important to avoid overgeneralization, it’s equally important to recognize that the field of paleontology, like any scientific discipline, should welcome diverse perspectives and encourage open debate. It is imperative to engage with these claims through rigorous investigation rather than dismissing them outright.

Challenges Facing Paleontology as a Reputable Science

Paleontology encompasses the study of a wide array of prehistoric fauna and flora. It’s not our contention that all paleontologists are wrong or ill-intentioned, and in fact, it’s plausible the majority are dedicated to advancing our knowledge of Earth’s prehistory. While many paleontologists diligently contribute to the field’s scientific rigor, we should recognize that challenges exist concerning the reputation of dinosaur science in particular. These unique challenges have led to discussions about the field’s overall reputation, prompting the need for reflection and potential improvements in certain areas of dinosaur science (Harmon, 2023).

Limited Access to Dinosaur Fossils: The accessibility to dinosaur fossils is limited, raising concerns about the ability to independently verify their authenticity. This restricted access often confines the validation process to a select group of paleontologists, making it challenging for outsiders to evaluate discoveries.

Closed Circle of Paleontologists: The existence of a “closed circle” of paleontologists who wield significant influence in the field is apparent. Critics have long asserted that this circle predominantly comprises individuals with aligned ideologies, potentially leading to confirmation bias and the exclusion of alternative viewpoints.

Challenges in Peer Review: Researchers face obstacles in challenging mainstream perspectives when navigating the peer review process. Dissenting voices can encounter difficulties in publishing their work or gaining validation from peers who adhere to the prevailing view. Opportunities to present their findings and interpretations for rigorous evaluation should be available to all.

Lack of Public Oversight: Critics advocate for increase public oversight of the validation process. Public involvement in evaluating and overseeing the authenticity of dinosaur fossils could enhance transparency and impartiality.

Hidden Agendas and Motivations: Some within the counterpaleo camp question whether hidden agendas or vested interests play a role in the validation of dinosaur discoveries. They emphasize the importance of addressing potential conflicts of interest to maintain the integrity of the process.

Alternative Explanations Dismissed: Alternative explanations for fossil discoveries are often prematurely dismissed. Dissenting voices should have opportunities to present their findings and interpretations for rigorous evaluation.

Collectively, these issues raise fundamental questions about the integrity and inclusivity of the field of paleontology. They underscore the need for a more open and inclusive approach to paleontological research, one that encourages diverse perspectives and rigorous scrutiny of all discoveries.

Conclusion

In closing, we must acknowledge Mr. Valle’s fervent responses during this discussion. While his passion for defending mainstream scientific views has been evident, it is important to maintain a critical perspective on the matter at hand. Our own viewpoints may be unconventional, but they represent a divergent perspective within the scientific community.

Trevor Valle’s commitment to upholding the prevailing scientific consensus serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining robust scientific standards. However, it is crucial to remember that diverse viewpoints, even if met with skepticism, contribute to the richness of scientific discourse. Therefore, we encourage Mr. Valle to continue defending established paradigms, as it prompts further exploration and examination of the questions surrounding the dubious existence of dinosaurs.

Matthew Hunt is a visiting scholar at CAD University. His expertise focuses on private museum management and detecting and addressing fraudulent activities within these institutions. Drawing upon his background in forensic accounting and investigative techniques, Mr. Hunt conducts financial audits and collaborates closely with museum personnel to uncover potential irregularities. His commitment underscores his dedication to ensuring that these privately funded establishments maintain their credibility as custodians of our cultural heritage.

Tessa Hughes is a graduate assistant at CAD University, actively supporting the Department of Biological Sciences in their research initiatives. Her primary focus is on examining the scientific and ethical aspects of dinosaur-related exhibitions and research, ensuring transparency and integrity in the study and display of dinosaur fossils. Tessa’s commitment to her work is complemented by her mentoring of undergraduate students and her active participation in academic events, and has made her a respected advocate within her field.