Dragons have to be real

For the record, what exactly killed the dinosaurs is purely speculative, and some newer information shows it may even have been a phenomenon called "verneshot" (It's my new favorite phenomena, look it up, its cool). But yeah, plate techtonics, one big continent.

Anyone ever think about that? All the land on one side of the planet? Was it just water on the other side or were there entire continents that have since been swallowed by plate techtonics? that's goofy, either way.

Originally posted by crayon
Don't forget the Komodo Dragon. I believe I heard that its the oldest unchanged species.

actually the jellyfish is the most unchanged

I believe that this universe used to be merged with another very similar universe but was divided during biblical times. In the merged universe things outside of our terms of normal and logical could exist. When the universes divided the things that did not fit our terms of logical were taken with the other universe and all that remained was taken with this one.

My logic behind this is based off of string theory. All things are made of strings. All strings have what could be called a frequency that they vibrate to. The combination of strings result in matter. Therefor all matter has a larger frequency that it vibrates to. Frequencies have a tendency to change very gradually overtime.

If two universes had very similar frequencies that both fluctuated at relatively similar intervals then every now and then they would merge as they became more and more alike. Then they would separate as the frequencies traded off.

For a good visual aid picture the frequencies being graphed as a two dimensional double-helix. At the pointes where they connect the universes merge then separate again.

In the other universe dragons exist just as many other creatures of myth do. Because many of their traits are unexplainable in this reality they could not stay in this world but instead went with the other as it separated from ours.

There's some pretty illogical stuff in THIS universe, as any episode of Star Trek with Vulcans in it could tell you. Especially your human 'emotion'.

dragons were very real...if you need a real referance...look into the book: Dragonologt: the complete book of dragons. this book has many useful rescources like species, habbitat, bone and muscle stectures...and more. check it out and tell me if you still have any doubts

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
It turns out it was another dino the Apatosaurus.so the technically-correct name is Apatosaurus.

Striclty speaking, the name apatosaurus had been applied to an earlier find first, then another specimin was found and named brontosaurus. Since apatosaurus was the first name used, its the one kept, it has 'priority'. Also, I think it was a diplodocus that had the wrong head no? And I recall a plesiosaur (or somesuch) that had the tail vertebrae in place of the neck and vice versa)

gazrok
Yes but what is the basis for this common idea of a large reptile enemy of man?

large serpents figure in many primitive religions, cults, and rituals. They needn't be based on dragons. Also, if dragons had existed since, when, the age of the dinosaurs, in large numbers, all around the world, for 65 million years, there should be some fossils indicating this.

Whether actual beasts now extinct, or a racial memory of back when we were little mammals hiding from dinos, there is SOMETHING that this stems from....

Definitely, but a large scaly monster need not have come from a fire breathing dragon. Also, like you've mentioned, many cultures have dragon myths. However, in south america, Quetzelcoatl is a feathered sky serpent/mangod. In china, dragons are extraordinarily snake like, in europe, they can be variable, often presented as having leathery wings. Also, I've noticed that dragons in olde (yes, with the 'e' on purpose) writtings, 'dragons' are sometimes caled c.f. 'wyrm' (ie the glowyrm in beowulf), which does seem to indicate a more serpentine origin that a four legged and winged dragon. Also notice that in teh quest for the golden fleece, its an exremely large serpent that guards the fleece. I'd also propose that the hercules infant myth, where he strangled two serpents sent to kill him in his crib, indicates that there is a very basic cultural and perhaps biological fear of these kinds of reptiles.

baronvonfunke
verneshot

'volcanic eruption that sends a projectile into orbit'. Interesting. Any evidence for such events happening?

The chixulub crater in the yucatan is apparently the correct age for having been associated with the extinction of the dinosaurs, and the presence of a worldwide iridium anomoly indicates that something from space was involved, not a rock ejected from a volcano.

leahcarspyro
Dragonologt: the complete book of dragons. this book has many useful rescources like species, habbitat, bone and muscle stectures..

how about reference some of this information, or indicating where they got skeletal and muscle examples?

maybe ancient people found a fossil that they misinterproted what the bones were. for example the myth of a cyclops is belived to come about becuase of elephant skulls. becuase the one hole in the skull for the trunk would have seemed to be one eye socket

There is a theory about ancient bones finds as the origin of many mythical creatures.

Heres one example I remember

Protoceratops skull





Image of a griffin




The skull bares a uncanny resemblance to the griffin head. This head would have been found with four legs and the crest on the head often times breaks off the skull and these could have been seen as wing bones. Also of interest is that where the griffin myth started is the same place as where Protoceratops bones are found.

I have no doubt ancient man came across these bones as even today many bones are found today by people just stumbling across them. Ancient people must have done the same thing. Like was stated before about the cyclops the skulls of mammoth can look very much like a large human skull with one eye socket also a mammoth leg bones looks like a giant human leg bone. This might have been the start of legends of giants. You could even arrange mammoth bones in a way that they look like a human. The Spartans of ancient greece were reported to have the bones of a great hero that was a giant perhaps they had themselves some mammoth bones.

Im sure finds of bones like this added to the stories of dragons. But I think it was a combination of many things megalania the largest lizard that ever livem,large snakes a number of other things.

another probllem with ancient sightings is that what we think of large nd small has changed. so if they say they saw a large lizard, i tmay not be what we would think of like a fourty foot monster. for example in the story of david and goliath, goliath was said to be a giant, but translating the accutual height from the bible he onlt comes out to be around 6' 9", which is giant by their standards, but to us thats just fairly large not a huge monster

Originally posted by Nygdan

leahcarspyro
Dragonologt: the complete book of dragons. this book has many useful rescources like species, habbitat, bone and muscle stectures..

how about reference some of this information, or indicating where they got skeletal and muscle examples?

If you would actually read the book instead of automatically taking a strictly sceptical view on it, you would know that the original author claimed to have done firsthand studies on live and deceased specimens.

Don't get me wrong, I believe skepticism is an important part of paranormal studies, but it can be taken too far. For instance, disregarding information without even viewing it or half-heartedly viewing it.

Originally posted by daniel191159
author claimed to have done firsthand studies on live and deceased specimens.

And what evidence supports this claim? Why should I run out and get a book that makes such ludicrous claims if people who have read it can't even present its evidence and supporting information at all clearly? Makes me think that there isn't much in the way of either.

disregarding information without even viewing it or half-heartedly viewing it.

How about presenting it? Thats all I asked, I never disregarded it or rejected it. If this book has proof that 'dragons' exist, why are you unable to present some of that proof?

I have the "Dragonology" book sat on a shelf at this time and have read through it a number of times, and it is safe to say it is a work of fiction.
It's a great book and a very etertaining read that will capture ones imagination perfectly, nevertheless it is still a fictional piece rather than a research text.
Firstly take a look at the books general discription.

Dr. Ernest Drake is said to have lived in St. Leonard’s Forest, Sussex, England, in the late nineteenth century and to have issued a very limited run - some 100 copies - of DRAGONOLOGY in 1895. A noted dragonologist and a founding member of the Secret & Ancient Society of Dragonologists in London, Dr. Ernest Drake was determined to bring the subject of dragons under the burgeoning umbrella of the nineteenth-century natural sciences. He had absolutely no doubt that dragons exist, and his notes suggest that he had no little experience of them. Apparently, only one copy of DRAGONOLOGY ever appeared in public, surfacing in the basement of a secondhand bookstore in London in 1987. The book was accompanied by a letter, dated 1904, addressed to an unnamed apprentice. Dr. Ernest Drake’s painstaking work has been faithfully reproduced in this unique volume.

Also note this book appears in either the childrens or science fiction/fantasy sections of book suppliers.
Things from the book itself to show its lack of reality. Well firstly it has "skin" samples on some of the pages so you can see and feel what dragon scales are like, take into account the amount of these books now sold worldwide and i think we just made dragons extinct from all that skin we took for them.
Also it has a small section detailing "Dragon Writing" now any fool with even a basic knowledge of ancient texts will recognise this as Norse/Viking runes. It's not even a mild similarity but an exact 1:1 copy letter for letter, along with the fact that the locations "Dragon Writing" is found in are in areas where vikings had substantial populations. With the exception of australia, which im pretty sure doesn't contain nordic runes anywhere, but I'm happy to be proved wrong if someone wishes to examine the area it talks of.
It's not that I don't like the book. I love it, it reminds me of being a child and lying in bed with a favorite large picture/popup book. But thats all it is.


As to Dragons being real???? I'm still on the fence on that issue. Parts of me can see them being (or once being) a true species, with feasable methods of evolution and such. But then I can also see so many problems with such a creature as far as eco-systems go that I do also have many doubts.

[edit on 19-9-2004 by feygan]

"Dragonology" is indeed a work of fiction, as you can see from the Amazon.com reviews:
www.amazon.com...

Like a number of similar books put out by the science fiction community, it's actually a form of humor but one apparent only to the real science nerds. Helen Ward is the illustrator, someone well-known for her beautiful style and exquisite watercolors.

Okay... so how do I know this? I review books for the ASFA Quarterly, and have been sent several similar books including the one by Hague:
www.amazon.com...=pd_bxgy_text_1/104-2439539-6039941?v=glance&s=books&st=*

The science fiction community has a number of wonderful "real life" books, including some on futuristic technologies. The magazine, "Heavy Metal" often has these features and they're very popular.

... but no fossilized remains. Hmmm....

The wonderful thing about science is that theories can be altered with just a single discovery. All it would take would be 1 "dragon scale" to justify grant funding for further archeological research.

In terms of archeology, we can get an idea of how far back the idea of dragons goes:

Two years of archaeological research at the Xinzhai Ruins of Xinmi City, in central China's Henan Province, has borne fruit. Scientists have basically confirmed this was a large city with three moats and grand buildings in the early part of the Xia Dynasty (c.2100 BC - c.1600 BC). It is the first time that a walled city dating from the Xia Dynasty has been found, providing new materials for research on the period.

Other articles found include bronze utensil fragments, a vessel lid with designs similar to those on the bronze plates of the Erlitou culture and the foot of an earthen utensil bearing patterns resembling dragons. The quality and style of the artifacts indicate that aristocrats once inhabited the building.

www.chinapage.com...


By the way, does anyone have an original copy of that "dragonology" book? Any rare book collectors around?

MK

There was a time when I believed dragons were nothing more than personal, psychological thoughtforms, elementals, ghosts, lower astral beings, fairies and demons as well. If I couldnt see, confirm the sight or sense by another reasonable person, I chalked it all up to an overactive imagination. I approached the idea of other entities with a very skeptical view. Sometimes, if youre very lucky, the mountain comes to Muhammad.

Dragons are real, and older than I have yet to comprehend. They exist in another plane, but if they choose, can interact with this one. I have marveled at a great many things, been blessed by sights and events I never dreamed of; but to meet dragons is to truly know awe.

Be a skeptic, dont accept anything as real until it passes your own "personal reality test". But if you are recently wondering a lot about dragons, there may be a dragon who has been wondering about you...

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by daniel191159
author claimed to have done firsthand studies on live and deceased specimens.

And what evidence supports this claim? Why should I run out and get a book that makes such ludicrous claims if people who have read it can't even present its evidence and supporting information at all clearly? Makes me think that there isn't much in the way of either.

disregarding information without even viewing it or half-heartedly viewing it.

How about presenting it? Thats all I asked, I never disregarded it or rejected it. If this book has proof that 'dragons' exist, why are you unable to present some of that proof?

I am not making a claim that this book is, on the whole, fact. My claim is that people should, before jumping to conclusions, review with as little bias as possible the information presented to them.

As I stated before, skepticism is not bad. But when it is taken to the level of jumping the gun and implying that something is fake without first viewing the information, then it sould be toned down a bit.

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
Well, if dragons did exist, they were probably some sort of unknown dinosaur....just my opinion though..but Dragons dont HAVE to be real, because nothing HAS to happen

-wD

I remember hearing a Priest or some other kind of clergy member talking about dragons. He said that he believes dragons were a kind of dinosaur. Then he went on to say that the reason there are none left is because if you read all of the stuff from the middle ages, all these "dragon-slayers" that we consider mythical, were real. And that they drove the dragons to extinction, just as we drove the dodo and other such animals to extinction.

Perhaps the priest is right, I however am undecided on the issue of dragons.They don't Have to be real but maybe they were.

I have three pet dragons! Of course they are real!

lol nice beardies

and has any one proposed the fact that in order for dragons to fly they would need incredbly strong light weight bones like carbon fiber bones in a way inorder to get bones like such wouldent it be very possible that because of the bones being so hallow and lightweight that they would be crushed while undergoing the process of fossilazition