Comet Impact: Origin of the Dragon Myths?

That was a special effects documentary none of that was true it was just a movie on what it would be like if they really did exist or if we found them

Are there any lizards made out of pure cartilage?
Like no bones?
Maybe dragons were made out of cartilage and that's why there's no fossils?
Just a thought I came up with right now..

Chondrosteosaurus:
A “bony-cartilage lizard (cartilage-boned)” from Early Cretaceous Isle of Wight (UK). This creature was formerly known as Eucamerotus. Named by British anatomist Sir Richard Owen (1804-1892) in 1876.

www.wordquests.info.../hsphere/local/home/scribejo/wordquests.info/htm/L-Gk-sauro-B-C.htm&HIGHLIGHT=sauro

-------------------------------------------------------

Thats a dinosaur with cartilage. I don't know to much about it because I just searched it. Also when lizards loose they're tail when it regrows it is just cartilage, so IMO there could very well be a lizard of just cartilage.

[edit on 4-7-2005 by 9890]

I just did some googling on that cartilage dinosaur and the only fossil remains found of the dinosaur was it's vertebrae and a thigh bone..

Chinese Dragon may have been a Protosaur:
www.josephbosco.com...

So is that saying that the dragon of chinese legend is actually a protosaur? Well I mean is that what it is suggesting?

Yeah, I found the article while I was trying to find some unrecognized vertebrae fossils.
The article was suggesting that the Chinese may have found the vertebrae of a Protosaur and couldn't I.D. it.. and they came up with the idea of a long serpent or dragon:

The strange long-necked fossil creature, named Dinocephalosaurus orientalis, has not been found anywhere else in the world, says the researcher with the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Two fossil specimens of the protorosaur were found in a marine limestone formation dating back to the Middle Triassic Period (230 million years ago) near Xinmin of Guizhou Province in 2002 and collected by the institute. One is the reptile's skull and neck fossil and another is its trunk.

[edit on 7/5/2005 by Logical_Psycho]

Hmmm interesting I never really thought of it that way. Maybe it was just a surviving dinosaur that may be extinct now or maybe the only reason there are these myths is because someone found a fossil of something and they thought of that.

I watched this documentary on dragons awhile ago, and it was said in the article that knights would bring back crocodile's heads to their kings as gifts.
The king would think it was a dragon.
Interestingly enough, the article describes the protorosaur's skull as being similar to that of a crocodile.

So maybe this whole thing was just a hoax to gain favor for the king. But you mentioned the protosaur's head looks like a crocodile so maybe they brought a skull of that back. Just a thought.

Yeah, maybe, but I think it would've been wiser of the knight to bring back the head of a dead crocodile rather than a fossil, so it would be as though he killed this great, "fire breathing", beast.

Ya it would be, dont want to make the king mad, but what if they thought that crocodiles were dragons? Could that be a reason why they did it?

Originally posted by 9890
Ya it would be, dont want to make the king mad, but what if they thought that crocodiles were dragons? Could that be a reason why they did it?

In that documentary I watched, it said that crocodiles were rare animals around civilized places.
So it might have been possible that they did think it was a dragon.
One knight actually brought one back to the town center and caged it.
It escaped and killed a couple people.

That wouldnt be to good on the knights part. Where do you get all this info? It seems interesting I would like to check it out

It was on the History channel.
There's this biblical knight who was a dragon hunter, St. George, and there's a couple paintings on him slaying "dragons."
It's kind of metaphorical because dragons were considered to be a great evil and opposite of God.

Here's a painting:


A big lizard near a body of water.. hmm..

and a miniature statue:

Kind of looks like a croc.

[edit on 7/5/2005 by Logical_Psycho]

[edit on 7/5/2005 by Logical_Psycho]

Yep I've heard of St. George. I've seen a couple paintings too. I think one story I heard was that after he killed a dragon the ground opened up and his sword got stuck in the ground. Or something like that

my personal thoughts have been that dragons and dinosaurs are the same thing. could they breath fire? who knows they certainly could have after all if a beetle can do it why not something bigger. or as someone mentioned it could have been the fact that dragons were equated with demons, the minions of satan who especialy in the middle ages always were equated with fire, horns and the like, (hell anyone lol).

now why is it that there has never been any room for arguement that dinasaurs/humans were never arround in the same time frames? it is a thought that generaly wouldn't even be loosely acknowlaged as haveing any type of possibility. i find that in and of it's self to be a bit strange. now i can understand that people would think that there is no way that humans could have survived with these critters arround. why not? currantly we still have these gigantic beasts known as elephants. they are imense when compared to a human as i am sure anyone would have to agree. i mean even 1 leg is as big arround as some humans. yet native tribes in africa have (and still do even though it is generaly against the law to do so), hunted these mighty creatures with primitive weapons. so why would it be so far fetched to think that dragons couldn't also be hunted?

there are just too many tales from too many cultures to believe that they were a figmint of someone's immagination. i could POSSIBLY buy into that if say the only tales/myths about dragons were only in one small part of the world or one culture. but the fact that these tales span the globe yet888 only being immaginary is a bit far fetched. there is that whole thing abou-t "well why are there no cave drawings of them?" line. have you actualy seen those primitive types of drawings close up and personal? i have had that oppertunity. i will note that there is a high probibility that the ones i saw are even compleately unknown to the scientific comunity. and yes there were representations that easily could have been possible dragons displayed. one must remember that these drawings do tend to be on the very basic line of art. now these drawings were in northern ontario/ quebec in the wilderness. far beyond things such as roads. i was on a canou trip as a kid when we happened upon them on a rock wall right at the edge od the water. one point of intrest about this paticular display was the fact that much of it was UNDER WATER. i went downbnjhhhhhhh with my mask and snorkle (you wouldn't believe how many times it came in handy to retrive dropped items oops not my fault). as such only two or three of us were able to have a good look by shreing the mask, (man councilors can be bitchy at times lol). anyway the most intact sections were under the water and there were definately drawings that reminded me of dinasaurs/dragons involved. i wish now that i knew the exact location but being a kid it didn't seem important at the time. just interesting.

i have wondered if dragons/ dinasaurs (whichever label you like, were hunted into extinction just as humans have done so ofter. especialy when they were afraid of said creature like wolves and such. something that humans have been rather good at, just ask any enviro natzi how good at it we are.

also of note is the fossilized (apparently), bone in a boot that was discussed several months ago. if it could even be just partialy fossilized then what does that say about the time it takes to create a fossil? could it be that yet again science has been blinded by what they want to see thus skewing what is reality? or even as that earlyer mentioned site posed done on purpose to suit pet therories that they are in faver of?

where do nessi and ogo pogo and the like fit in? there are certainly enough sightings in vastly far rangeing areas to be compleately false. seriousely the uk and on one side of north america as well as the other. and many in between. that is one far rangeing figment of the imagination that so many people seem to share. how bout "sea monsters"? yet again a widespread thing that has been looked on with disdane. giant squid have been realitively recently doccumented, which backs up one type of sea monster as described (not quite as large as one would have thought but then again the boats wern't realy all that huge either). so if they can exist why not others? how about those interesting carcases that wash up looking quite like what nessi is suppost to look like. things that are somehow turned into badly rotted whales and sharks? i know i am skeptic about those explinatrions.

also with such vast tracts of both land and sea realy not thouroly explored why could there not be anything there after all most creatures do their utmost best to stay hidden from us (do you blaim them). look at this new species of dolphen that has apparently JUST BEEN DISCOVERED. so why such stern refusil to even considder that dragons were a real creature? or that what we lable dinasaurs did not ever exist alonside or at least at the same time as man? ever notice when you are told something can not be even considdered that it has a habbit of being at least partialy true? almost as if the more denial the more likely it is.

Great post drogo. Those are exactly my thoughts but I couldn't find the words to say it. Much of the time while posting here on ATS, though, like many of my posts above I try to explore different explanations, so I can try to prove them wrong.