Newly Discovered Nazca Geoglyph Shows Dinosaur with Humans

Nice, click-baity headline, huh?

www.asahi.com...

A Japanese team did some additional searching with the help of some AI, and found 143 "new" glyphs, including this one that appears to show a dinosaur with a human being:


Although I kind of like this one, which the archeologists seem not to be able to recognize as a a snake (possibly either a representation of the afterlife, or maybe the Milky Way) eating a person and then pooping out another one. Reincarnation through snake poop? You be the judge.

Interesting to see the stegosaur image appear again at another location. There’s also an image of another stegsaur carved in one of the pilars or walls of Angkor Wat.

Stegosaur at Angkor Wat

It looks like the stegosaurus possibly survived the event that wiped out all other dinosaurs.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Damnit!!! I came here because I thought I read "Newly Discovered 'NAZI' Geoglyph Shows Dinosaur with Humans".


I instantly thought Iron Sky - The Coming Race! Then... They predicted it! It really happened!


Damnit! You go to hell!

originally posted by: StallionDuck
Damnit! You go to hell!

I'm way ahead of you.

There is a second Nazca dinosaur also.

-MM

originally posted by: 2Faced
Interesting to see the stegosaur image appear again at another location. There’s also an image of another stegsaur carved in one of the pilars or walls of Angkor Wat.

Stegosaur at Angkor Wat

It looks like the stegosaurus possibly survived the event that wiped out all other dinosaurs.

And don't foget the Ica Stones (likely forgeries, but...), also found in Peru.
www.ancient-origins.net...

It sure looks a bit like a T-Rex type. However, it could also represent a depiction, albeit rudimentary, of a (flightless) bird.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Indeed! I forgot all about that one. Also, the fact that there are multiple carvings and drawings depicting a stegosaur type animal, at different locations, could be seen as a confirmation of the Ica Stone’s validity.

a reply to: Blue Shift

It's more likely to be a stylised Chameleon to be honest.
ancient peruvian people used Chameleon urine to paint pottery

a reply to: Blue Shift

Rewrite the text books!

originally posted by: weirdguy
It's more likely to be a stylised Chameleon to be honest.
ancient peruvian people used Chameleon urine to paint pottery

That would actually make much more sense, at least for the latest nazca one, because of the eye and tail.

It's funny how they try to interpret ancient carvings literally with modern logic.

"It's a dinosaur eating one person while defecating another, undigested. Dinosaurs or extinct large reptiles were alive in that time."

No, sorry, it's a flying feather serpent God that had two heads and no anus. Kinda like a giant floppy frisbee is how it would move through the air.

The dificult part is seeing it as it was meant by the makers. Same with our language, what we call a “highway” today, could mean “doing things under the influence of drugs” in a thousand years, because we all fly around in our little spaceships by then and roads are obsolete.

a reply to: FlyingSquirrel

a reply to: 2Faced

That would actually make much more sense, at least for the latest nazca one, because of the eye and tail.

Maybe it would that is if it looked like a chameleon. Unless
chameleons at the time this glyph was created looked like a
Stegosaurus? It's a Stegosaurus. Can't believe anyone would
even try to pull that crap.

Any adult that's having trouble with it being a dinosaur can
have any little kid set 'em straight.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: 2Faced

That would actually make much more sense, at least for the latest nazca one, because of the eye and tail.

Maybe it would that is if it looked like a chameleon. Unless
chameleons at the time this glyph was created looked like a
Stegosaurus? It's a Stegosaurus. Can't believe anyone would
even try to pull that crap.

Any adult that's having trouble with it being a dinosaur can
have any little kid set 'em straight.

A Stegosaurus?
You must have the critical thinking skills of a 4 year old to believe it's a dinosaur of any kind. Thanks for the laugh though

Fun fact, small species of Chameleon lay 2-4 eggs.


A Chameleon,


A Stegosaurus (lol)


Which is more likely, a depiction of a dinosaur from 10's of millions of years ago, or an animal that the Inca were familiar with (enough to make paint from the urine).
The answer is kind of a no brainer.

In the first place I said that it would make more sense. Why? First of all, the chameleon is indigenous to the region, and, as I learned very recently, their urine was used for decoration, so they probably had some sort of a cultural/esthetic/social/ritual value, worth commemorating. Also, more often then not, it is usually the most obvious and logical explanation that’s the right one.

Second, looking at the nazca linedrawing, there are a couple of things that strike me as being distinct features that could be attributed to a chameleon. I’m referring to it’s tail, the emphasized exagerated eye and it’s overal contours, like an almost round/oval body shape, as some chameleons seem to have.

What speaks against it being a stegosaur, imo, are:
1. the detached back plates. Most drawings I know show them attached to the back of the animal.
2. The shape and position of it’s head. That of the stegosaur is more like a rhino’s, and usually hanging as high as, or lower then, it’s back. The nazca’s head is up high, has no neck, and is more profoundly rounded
3. The absence of a neck.
4. The position of it’s legs
5. The emphasized eye. The eyes of a stegosaur aren’t it’s most prominent or remarkable features, like it’s distinct back-plates for instance.

What speaks against it being a chameleon however are; it’s tail and it’s size relative to the human figgure. Because chameleons have a downward curl, for gripping and holding on, while the stegosaur’s tail is usually depicted with a slightly upward curl. The three round(ish) shapes, that could be interpreted as an artistic representation of back plates, and it’s size (compared to the “human” figgure), are what’s keeping me on the fence for now.

So am I saying it’s impossible that stegosaurs and humans lived together? Nope. Am I saying it must be a chameleon? Not really. All I’m saying is that it would make more sense, for several obvious reasons. Without more conclusive information and evidence however, we can only speculate.


a reply to: carsforkids

a reply to: weirdguy


I don't know what the answer to your question is but that is
not a chameleon.

I think most kids would say it's a dinosaur. But that doesn't
make it dinosaur either.

What ever it is, it's depicted as being bigger than the human form
close by right?

a reply to: Blue Shift

Yeah, that totally looks like a dinosaur LOL!

I really don't understand why people rule out the idea of those ancient people coming across fossilized remains of dinosaurs and extrapolating it to artwork and creative imagery. The chameleon looks like a far more likely explanation though and that is actually prevalent in the culture. I mean if a stegosaurus lived with humans, why wouldn't humans depict the obvious spikes on the tail? Funny how NONE of the ancient art shows that. Seems like a pretty big detail to leave out if you claim to have seen one, not to mention the whole thing looks like something a child would draw.

To be honest that picture doesn't even remotely resemble a stegosaurus, of course an ignorant child would leap to the conclusion of dinosaur, but no dinosaur actually looks like that. Why no feathers on ANY of the ancient art there? Why do they look like reptiles when they clearly were much more like birds? Sorry that example is pretty easily refuted.

Artwork does not mean dinosaurs lived with humans. Otherwise fire breathing dragons, werewolves, vampires, fairies, mutants with superpowers, etc all lived with humans since we drew and created stories about them.

Ica stones are known forgeries.

originally posted by: weirdguy
A Stegosaurus?

You must have the critical thinking skills of a 4 year old to believe it's a dinosaur of any kind. Thanks for the laugh though

This x1000. The guy has no critical thinking AT ALL about ANYTHING. He just asserts his emotional presuppositions without even entertaining rational explanations.