Evidence for the Co-Existence of Humans and Dinosaurs

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
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?

It's possible that myths of dragons originated from Dinossaur fossils, altough unlikely. If ancient people found dinossaur bones they would try to imagine it was from some sort of ancient animal and come out of weird conclusions of it, since it's hard to imagine what the animal looked like. It's very possible that dragons back then were similar to bigfoot stories from nowdays, some people believed in it, and others didn't.

Whomever it's unlikely that dragons were dinossaurs or a real animal due to how widespread the myths were. Usually real mythical animals were restricted to a specific tribe or location, which was the case of Mountain Gorilla and Quaga.

a reply to: Riffrafter

One of my hobbies is antique map collecting. They can be extraordinary in their simplicity and/or complexity, and I love the way they can depict older state or country boundaries and land masses. They are also often beautifully hand colored in using special inks that faded very little over time compared to other colored inks.

BTW as per my previous message - this is why I love antique maps...

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Whats more likely, a dinosaur or a local extant creature depicted in art? There isnt any other depictions anywhere else, not even mentioned. Thats why I dont believe it.

I do believe its possible, and possibly had coexisted with them, but not there at that time.

What do you say to things like this, same temple?

Whomever it's unlikely that dragons were dinossaurs or a real animal due to how widespread the myths were.

I certainly don't imagine they breathed fire.....

But, large flying reptiles, and large land ones...I can certainly see the passed along tales of seeing such survivors getting intertwined, embellished, etc. until eventually taking form as a dragon we recognize.

No doubt, if sighted, the things were hunted quickly, so even if they did survive into the time of man, it wouldn't have been for long. Same with giant birds.

a reply to: cooperton

I am unable to locate the footage but at one point in the past there was a team of anthropologists who had traveled to a remote lake in the middle of the Amazon (I believe) and they captured footage of what appears to be a long neck and pronounced head rising from the waters of this lake.

If memory serves me correctly the local tribes all reference what could be a brontosaurus that lives in the lake. At some point the locals had even found and eaten part of the animal and some had contracted a virus of some sort. It's been many years since viewing the footage so I may be getting some aspects of the story incorrect.

Supposedly they had waited for days at the lake to capture footage and finally managed to do so during a rain storm.

Are you familiar with this story or this footage?

EDIT: Since the discovery of live coelacanth, which was supposedly extinct some 70 million years ago, I find it plausible we may have other ancient animals still alive in parts of the unexplored or rarely explored world.

Perhaps you are thinking of the movie: "Baby" ?

a reply to: cooperton

Love this post. It hearkens to the good old days of ATS. Let's take back ATS from the bigots and fascists! We need more posts on conspiracy theories, aliens, sci-fi as sci-fact, hidden knowledge, etc...etc... Let's get away from the politics and hate filled rhetoric and go back to the days when going to ATS was always fun.

a reply to: Butterfinger

When a one headed cobra with normal cobra dentition just isn't scary enough.

Ye of little faith. It matters not whether they coexisted or at separate times. You don't have to prove one or the other to believe.

originally posted by: Frocharocha


It's possible that myths of dragons originated from Dinossaur fossils, altough unlikely. If ancient people found dinossaur bones they would try to imagine it was from some sort of ancient animal and come out of weird conclusions of it, since it's hard to imagine what the animal looked like. It's very possible that dragons back then were similar to bigfoot stories from nowdays, some people believed in it, and others didn't.

You're forgetting that ancient people saw bones all the time.

In the modern world, most people get their meat handed to them pre-slaughtered. Many modern people have never seen a partially stripped animal carcass in their life.

When you see a lizard skull attached to a huge body with hollow bones, what you are seeing is basically a "cross between a bird and a lizard." Which is the most fundamental definition of a European dragon.

Just don't know where they got the fire part from? Although not all dragon myths involve them breathing fire.

originally posted by: SickWave
Ye of little faith. It matters not whether they coexisted or at separate times. You don't have to prove one or the other to believe.

Sure. But the timeless 'teachers of the law' are leading people down the path of delusion. They have usurped the public school system, and now everyone is taught, without empirical evidence, that we are mutant monkeys and not children of God. At the root of this is the early teaching that dinosaurs are millions of years old. This is precedent for brain-washing with the theory of evolution, and it starts usually in 2nd grade when kids are taught about dinosaurs. Again, there is no empirical evidence backing the million-year-old dinosaur claim, but they teach it anyway. Here is a human footprint and a dinosaur footprint in supposedly million year old limestone:



CT scans show that there were compressions in the limestone while it was wet, indicating that it is not a fraudulent carving, but occurred while the limestone was still wet enough to leave an impression:



"I tell you," he replied, "if the people of God keep quiet, the stones will cry out." Luke 19:40

a reply to: cooperton

Behemoth was a Hippo for the love of all that's holy!!

Come on man, this is common f***ing knowledge!!!

I mean, that whole tail that SWAYS LIKE A CEDAR thing should be a dead ass giveaway!

What do cedar trees in the MENA region look like again? What region of the world do hippos live in again?

Next you're gonna tell us that the unicorns on the friggin ark were ACTUAL UNICORNS not rhinos right?

P.s. Yeah... If you try to radio carbon date something way the hell out of the dating range it's actually good for you'll get super F***y results...

WHICH IS WHY YOU DON'T RADIO CARBON DATE F***ING DINOSAURS!!!

Do you honestly think that that carbon 14 is the only isotopic dating method in the modern technological toolbox?!

Hint; It's not!!! There's actual WORKING METHODS that won't give you the double GIGO/PEBCAK fatal runtime errors and will instead give you actual useful data!!

Also... Don't waste your money having your random ass "dinosaur bones" carbon dated (you know, since only F***Ing IDIOTS and Bible thumpers do stupid s*** like this because it produces consistently wrong results!) AND also because REAL RESEARCH only uses isotopic dating IN CONJUNCTION WITH very careful and meticulous attention to where in the geologic column the samples came from as a comprehensive cross check to the proper and within date range isotopic dating technology!

Also, on the "red blood cells" yeah.... You're wrong there too!!

Wanna know how I know?

Because the actual chick who initially found this slurry WHICH HAD NO INTACT RED BLOOD CELLS only indicators that the slurry may have been them at one point SAYS YOU'RE WRONG!

Frankly, she's an infinitely better source than you, who got taken in by young earth creationist asshattery, on her research!

The interview she did with the non sequitur show on YouTube is a good place to start as far as the "red blood cells" thing as well as other interviews and debates which very very thoroughly destroy the entire carbon dating asshattery in case you're interested.

Don't get me wrong, you actually did have SOME interesting stuff on the extremely widespread and consistent descriptions etc we find for something massive and scaley living with humans fairly recently.

BUT

EVERY SINGLE BIT of your "undebunkable scientific evidence and research" is utter trash tier young earth creationist bulls*** and completely beneath the level we should expect out of ATS posters and their posts!

There's quite simply no excuse for you not to have spotted the THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF REFUTATIONS.

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: cooperton

Behemoth was a Hippo for the love of all that's holy!!

Come on man, this is common f***ing knowledge!!!

I mean, that whole tail that SWAYS LIKE A CEDAR thing should be a dead ass giveaway!

What do cedar trees in the MENA region look like again? What region of the world do hippos live in again?

Judging from the mesopotamian cylinder seal depicting two brachiosauruses, there were also brachiosaurus in the region. Having a tail that moves like a cedar tree... let's see:

P.s. Yeah... If you try to radio carbon date something way the hell out of the dating range it's actually good for you'll get super F***y results...

Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) would not make such mistakes. If there is no C-14 the results would say such. You can email any lab tech at one of the AMS labs, they will tell you the same thing. No dinosaur remains dated have yet to return such a result.

Do you honestly think that that carbon 14 is the only isotopic dating method in the modern technological toolbox?!

No but it is the main way of dating biological animals. Is C-14 dating now wrong because it doesn't match your dogmatic belief system?

Also, on the "red blood cells" yeah.... You're wrong there too!!

Wanna know how I know?

Because the actual chick who initially found this slurry WHICH HAD NO INTACT RED BLOOD CELLS only indicators that the slurry may have been them at one point SAYS YOU'RE WRONG!

I pick my words very carefully. I said:

"Here is a picture of some red blood cell fragments"

I never said it was a whole intact red blood cell

Don't get me wrong, you actually did have SOME interesting stuff on the extremely widespread and consistent descriptions etc we find for something massive and scaley living with humans fairly recently.

Thank you

EVERY SINGLE BIT of your "undebunkable scientific evidence and research"

That's a miss-quote

is utter trash tier young earth creationist bulls*** and completely beneath the level we should expect out of ATS posters and their posts!

That's an opinion

There's quite simply no excuse for you not to have spotted the THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF REFUTATIONS.

The old scientific dogma is a zealous beast. Most will not even consider changing their minds, regardless of the evidence. This is just a start to the discussion but I think it is compelling enough to consider and investigate more thoroughly. Blind disregard for these observations would be negligent science

Next you're gonna tell us that the unicorns on the friggin ark were ACTUAL UNICORNS not rhinos right?

So, Unicorns are mere fantasy, yet the idea of a man building a boat to house two of every animal in the world, for over a month....THAT is perfectly plausible?

One question for the Noah folks.... What did the carnivores eat during the voyage?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: turbonium1
Nobody discovered there were dinosaurs for thousands of years, until the late 1800's. Suddenly, they began to find dinosaur bones all over the world.

They probably discovered fossils. Just didn't put it together to realize what they had found, exactly.

For example, there are many interesting parallels between the legends of "Griffons" and the occurrence of fossils for a triceratops-like dinosaur in the region those legends began in. There's a good chance the bones gave rise to the story.

en.wikipedia.org...

Rockefeller realized, at that moment, dinosaurs created all the world's oil, and termed it 'fossil fuels'. A very scarce, limited supply of oil, so don't forget about that!!

Good thing that all those dinosaurs popped up everywhere, around the world, so Rockefeller could find out that oil is a very scarce, and limited, resource!!

There is no danger of truly running out, because we can make synthetic oil using just CO2, water, and electricity.

The trouble is that it requires so much electricity that pumping it from the ground costs less than half the price of the electricity. So no serious effort will ever be put into synthesizing it in mass quantities unless the price doubles.

But when it does finally double, we can then finally move to a sustainable energy infrastructure.

You believe that dinosaur bones were probably found long before the late 1800's?

Nobody knew what the bones, and didn't care about it, anyway. They never showed anyone the bones, or mentioned it, either. All the people who discovered dinosaur bones did the same thing, for thousands of years...until the late 1800's, when they told the world about it?!?

Finding a massive skull, with 8-foot long teeth, happened many times over the centuries, but they didn't know what it was, so they left it there, and never mentioned it afterwards!


Are you serious?


More likely, the reason nobody mentioned dinosaur bones is .....nobody had ever 'discovered' dinosaur bones....until the late 1800's .

Everyone held up their discoveries, whether in ancient Rome, or 15th century England..it was something to be proud of, it was often lucrative, it gave them fame, and glory.

Suppose a poor farmer of the day had found a T-Rex skull in his field. When the word gets out, his land is suddenly worth a small fortune. Life-changing.

It would be highly unlikely for even ONE of the discoveries to remain unknown, let alone each and every one of the discoveries, over thousands of years, over the entire world!!

In ancient civilizations, they searched for bones of a unicorn, or a dragon, or a winged horse...They dug for unicorn horns in the ground, as we have dug for dino-bones. They dug for gold, for buried treasure, for water, and many other things, over thousands of years. Digging deep into the ground didn't start in the 1800's, and discoveries within the ground didn't start in the 1800's. Nor were 'unknown' discoveries seen as worthless, or even mention, before the 1800's.


Do you see why there is something very odd about this?

Not sure?

When you see what happened after the first discovery of dinosaurs, only thousands of years of NOT finding a single thing, it gets even better.....

Nobody would even know what a dinosaur was, since nobody had 'discovered' one before.

They'd only know there was some unknown beast, which lived there, earlier.

'We didn't know what was in the ground, or why we wanted to dig into the ground, or why we decided to dig into ground at that particular area.'

'It was lucky that we found the first ever dinosaur bones at that spot. Someone had spent a lot of money on this expedition, to dig into the ground at that spot, for a long time.'

This was a 'discovery' which never happened for thousands of years, until they funded an expedition, for some reason, to dig deep into ground, for some reason, at a specific area, for some reason, where they found the first dinosaur bones, which nobody knew even existed.

After they knew dinosaurs existed, it was easy to find a lot of dinosaur bones, everywhere else. Finding the first dinosaur took thousands of years, but after that, you'll start finding dinosaurs all over the world, and within a few years, you'll 'discover' many types of dinosaurs....no problem!

That's when dinosaurs were understood as 'fossil fuel'. Dinosaur remains created all the world's oil. And why we refer to oil as fossil fuels - to this very day!

Standard Oil knew dinosaurs made oil, right after the discovery of many dinosaurs. Good thing they found dinosaurs everywhere, just before oil became the key to modern society!

By pure coincidence, Darwin was presenting his theory of evolution to the world, at the same time dinosaurs were popping up everywhere!

After so many dinosaurs had been 'discovered', it was determined that they had lived at different periods of time. This was due to our ability to 'date' these dinosaurs. With 'carbon dating'. And they found out dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. This helped Darwin's theory of evolution, which was purely a coincidence, as well.

Nothing odd, right?

a reply to: Phage

1. That wiki did not suggest most were snakelike
2. In other threads you come down pretty hard on wiki sources being used


Carry on

a reply to: Phage

Actually its not pareidolia either if you bothered being honest about the op.
Eyewitness accounts in historical texts, even carbon dating in the Op.

Disingenuous comments that add nothing to the thread

a reply to: Xtrozero

So carbon dating can only date the last 50k years.
Can someone eplain how they say mountain ranges are 200 million years old?

a reply to: korath

www.google.com... -science

So more oxygen allowed for bigger critters and in the other hand they say oxygen and free radicals cause premature ageing.

Someone should lock these idiots up