Evidence for the Co-Existence of Humans and Dinosaurs

a reply to: Butterfinger

Thanks for the correction but not buying the chameleon description.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Butterfinger

Oh really?
So "experts" make decissions on what it is or isn't on mine and your behalf
"Experts" like phage I expect, decide what's debunked and what's not

Experts decide if it's a little lizard or a big lizard, your acting a little ignorant and a little reliant on others opinions, that's fine
But those experts don't decide what I believe

That depiction may not be a stegosaurus, it may well be an undocumented species of dinosaur
I am going with a variant of a Steg, don't care what your experts say, they don't decide for me, neither do you, not without hard science

I am no expert but your pretty picture, no plates, long spindly legs, long skinny tail, large head crest, your experts are stupid, they are clearly not experts on obvious observations

Chill out man, I wasnt insulting anyone, I was just disagreeing and sharing the reasons why.. you know like the OP and every poster here?

Great post.
I have belied this for a long time.
dragons from England to Japan!
how can they have not been real.

and the old maps had sea monsters in some places.
look at the old maps. they are Not whales.

humans LOVE to kill.
that's why we don't have dragons and unicorns.
look at the tiger! we have almost killed them all.
we still may.

I've heard theories that dragon myths come from ancient people encountering dinosaur bones, but that really doesn't seem plausible at all. We never find entire dinosaur skeletons just lying around. They need to be painstakingly excavated and re-assembled, and even then there's a ton of guesswork involved in figuring out what the dinosaur looked like. Does anybody seriously think that ancient Anglo-Saxon or Siberian tribesmen conducted the careful paleontological work required to assemble dinosaur bones to the point where it actually looks like something more than a few random bone fragments?

The extreme similarity of dragon myths is hard to explain away as a coincidence. No matter where you go in the world, the local variety of dragon ends up looking like a dinosaur. The simplest explanation is that, sometime in the distant past, they encountered dinosaurs.

Similarly, check out the Wikipedia page for Gigantopithecus hominids. Especially look at the comparison graph on the right-side of the page, about halfway down. Remind you of Sasquatch or Yeti stories? Gigantopithecus really did exist. Could they have survived long enough for certain modern-day human tribes to have encountered them?

a reply to: Butterfinger

My apologies, I may have overreacted but

It has not been debunked
Other people have a different opinion to that expressed by the op

Seemed you were being a little arrogant and superior

originally posted by: Butterfinger


Thats Aghor Wat in cambodia, not Gobekli Tepe. Also debunked:

So what you are saying is Aghor Wat was built to resemble a Stegosaurus that once walked with man?

Conclusion based on that, no remains and probability say that it is more likely:

I see a 25 ton chameleon dino on a huge branch...what do you see?

wow so wrong been quite a few dinos that were darn near compleatly intact
not only that but also quite a few right on the surface just waiting for a person to walk by and look and think darn that was a huge animal .

met sue en.wikipedia.org...(dinosaur)
www.quora.com...
an a few of her friends quite a few who were just walked up to little digging needed .
Besides JUST the skulls alone would easly give rise to 20 different dragons .
and when the rock fossilizes the whole dino some almost are of photo quilty .
Heck as a kid I found many rock fossils of shells plants and small animals .

No one can debunk this because every early historical reference to dragons is considered myth and legend, despite the world wide accounts of such creatures.

I think it's extremely ignorant to dismiss the possibility that some dinosaurs were still knocking about more recently than the history books would have us know.

Well put, pretty much exactly my thoughts on the matter.

The idea of dragons didn't just come out of thin air. (especially not across so many cultures). Nor did it likely just come from observing fossils.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I was saying that carving is in Ankor wat in Cambodia, not Gobekli Tepe in Turkey. Nothing more, nothing less.

What I see is a carving that looks like a dino, but I also see a carving of a Pangolin or some other creature with leaves surrounding.

Theres also a huge statue of a 7 headed cobra, but noone suggests that it actually existed.

This is something that isnt corroborated in remains or other depictions. Seems to me the answer is likely more mundane.

I just cant buy it unless its apparent in another find or medium. Why only one carving of it?

I'm not tryting to debunk you guys, Im just of a different opinion.

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
a reply to: Butterfinger

Thanks for the correction but not buying the chameleon description.

No way was that a carving of a chameleon. It's dead-on for a stegosaurus, complete with those distinctive back plates.

o one otehr thing being Irish I know the orgians of unicorns .
around 600 or 700 years agaio during King Murchfuobull time his daughter
Princess Purity did not want to be handed off to duck scumbags hand so she told here father of a megical horse with a golden horn lived in the forest .
Naturally her father being a collector of gold things wanted one so asked his daughter how he could capture one .
She told him only a Virgin pure of heart and body would a unicorn come to .

Well dads greed knew no bounds so he forbid her to marry until a unicorn came to her .

She died childless and lonely regretting being a Murchfobull until the end of her days .
Moral of the story Irish people are all FOBULLS lol

originally posted by: buddha
Great post.
I have belied this for a long time.
dragons from England to Japan!
how can they have not been real.

and the old maps had sea monsters in some places.
look at the old maps. they are Not whales.

humans LOVE to kill.
that's why we don't have dragons and unicorns.
look at the tiger! we have almost killed them all.
we still may.

And there are maps that show the earth supported by 4 giant elephants standing on the back of a giant tortoise after all how else does a flat earth support itself.

Jesus H! I just came here for 10 minutes during the half time world cup break and denial of science and sheer unadulterated ignorance is in full flow in this thread. Literally thousands of years of human knowledge rolled back in the ignorant internet age of the 21st century.

For all you folks having orgasms over the thought of an image being true but modern science being wrong try these :

The minotaur, Greece, half man half bull.
The Hydra, greece, a nine headed serpent.
The unicorn, a horse with a single horn.
The werewolf, human by day wolf by night.
The mermaid, half fish half human.

Come on these are all embedded in similar texts to the dragons, so they must all be true and science is wrong.

a reply to: cooperton

I've wondered about carbon dating before. Why do we have so much confidence in it, again? It seems to me that the idea that C-14 concentrations are constant is rather a stretch. At the least, the onus is on them to prove it accurate, not on us to prove it inaccurate. Particularly when we're talking about timeframes of this magnitude.

It's a dirty little secret that much of science isn't well proven at all. For example, you've certainly heard about how your fingerprints are unique, yours & yours alone. Except that isn't really true. There have been several recorded instances of people being convicted of a crime because their fingerprints were found at the scene, and then it turned out someone else with very similar fingerprints did it. Worse, most of these cases we only know about because the true culprit confessed, meaning this is likely only a tiny fraction of the true number of cases of false positives that have occurred. For reasons that should be obvious (especially on ATS), law enforcement agencies around the world like to keep these incidents quiet.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Fair enough, the back plates yes, but there are no tail spikes at the end, also there are no fossils of stegosauruses with head crests.

This is a truly unbelievable thread - as in "not remotely plausible".

You are more or less implying that there has been a deliberate coverup of dinosaur bones; why? What good would that accomplish, and why would archeologists, and the myriads of students they bring along with them for excavations, all contribute to the hoax?

I like to think that there are two extremes in human knowing: we can claim something over-zealously, and therefore not quite notice the paranoia - or threat disposition - that are assertion is deriving from.

On the other hand, we can be naive, and come to think that the world is less complex and multifarious in terms of its moral actors than it really is.

In balancing these two considerations, I simply fail to see the value or importance of concealing the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans, and, furthermore, because carbon dating and other forms of dating so clearly align, placing the brachiosaurus to 161 million years ago, whereas anatomically modern humans have been around for at most 300,000 years.

The absence of coherency to the whole claim, from the theoretical (inconsistent with evolution) to the empirical (complete absence of fossil evidence) leads me to conclude that you're simply off-base, and need to accept the intense improbability of this being true.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


The first thing you said about C-14 concentrations simply isn't true: there is plenty of evidence the C-14 decays at a certain rate within organisms, and when outside of the organism. It is this differential which allows them to calculate 'when' the organism likely lived.

As to the second, incredibly exaggerated claim: that it is a "dirty little secret that science isn't well proven" - uh, what? Does it feel good to say stuff like that, even though its pretty much impossible to defend?


If you accept that science is a theory of how best to understand nature, and also accept that all other theories (such as gnostic spiritualistic dualism) are also just theories, what should ultimately matter, then?

I would like to throw out what matters, and then affirm that this is where science gets the upper hand: Evidence

Do facts exist? Yes. Right now I am responding to your post: fact. I am also feeling miffed on the inside by the audacity people like you demonstrate i.e. an overzealousness to make assertions without realizing that you do it for the social-affect i.e. a 'pride' like state of being 'one who knows'.

Facts exist in the short term, and yes, indeed, they exist in the long term to.

Although evolution is a theory, and we cannot say with 100% certainty that it is true, it is almost certainly true when all the various evidences from all the various sciences line up - whether it be archeological finds like fossils or pottery, or the study of languages and their dissemination, the various forms of dating line up. They confirm a very common-sensical way of understanding reality i.e. deduction and induction. It simply extends these reflexive practices in a disciplined and systematic manner into the study of various domains.

What does gnostic spiritualism have in its favor? Other than the brutal history of the dissemination of warrior cultures which have played such a prominent role in human history for the last 5,000 years, seemingly beginning with the Yamnaya culture?

Yes, spiritual and transcendental experiences are important, and they have an important place within the scienific agenda, but it is not to be interpreted so tendentiously, and in such a self-serving way, as it is clearly done by the 'elite' culture that has dominated Eurasia, the Indian subcontinent, and many other places for quite a long time.

Within scientific thinking, the neurobiological aftermath of psychological trauma adequately explains why belief systems like gnosticism form. It's very logical. Common sense stuff.

All true science, in my opinion, is common sense. Its good reading because it 'makes sense' in a deeper and more expansive way than gnostic spirtualism does. Rather, one could make a plausible case that the latter preoccupation generates a brain-mind with a very idealistic and very dissociative self-structure, with bad and harmful identifications with power (idealizations) and a reflexive dislike and distrust of states of vulnerability, love, and kindness.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Why do some want to put their hands over their ears and shout I can't hear you Na Na Na , When it comes to discussing a change in modern day thinking in regards to this sort of history changing science ?

Even this thread has produced enough evidence to atleast open a discussion. Our ansestors didn't just use their imagination to create all the carvings and drawings of anitomicly correct dinosaurs. What we belive or are told is true changes everyday one day something is belived to be fact and the next day we find out we were wrong. When we close our minds and say that's it we got it right no need to look more is when we prove we are truly arrogantly stupid .

Really enjoyed the post ..Thankyou

originally posted by: Astrocyte
This is a truly unbelievable thread - as in "not remotely plausible".

You are more or less implying that there has been a deliberate coverup of dinosaur bones; why? What good would that accomplish, and why would archeologists, and the myriads of students they bring along with them for excavations, all contribute to the hoax?

I like to think that there are two extremes in human knowing: we can claim something over-zealously, and therefore not quite notice the paranoia - or threat disposition - that are assertion is deriving from.

On the other hand, we can be naive, and come to think that the world is less complex and multifarious in terms of its moral actors than it really is.

In balancing these two considerations, I simply fail to see the value or importance of concealing the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans, and, furthermore, because carbon dating and other forms of dating so clearly align, placing the brachiosaurus to 161 million years ago, whereas anatomically modern humans have been around for at most 300,000 years.

The absence of coherency to the whole claim, from the theoretical (inconsistent with evolution) to the empirical (complete absence of fossil evidence) leads me to conclude that you're simply off-base, and need to accept the intense improbability of this being true.

Dinosaurs live among us now. Why is it hard to believe that larger ones were here even recently?