[Owlscrying]

June 30
Some fossils, named the “China dragon fossils”, were recently exhibited in the Xinwei Ancient Life Fossils Museum in Anshun, Guizhou. When archeologists first stripped the clay off the fossil, they found the dragon had a pair of horns above its head and the shape of the dragon was very like the legendary animal often described in books and stories.

The dragon fossil was found in Guanling County, Anshun City, in 1996, and has been kept in a good condition. It is measured 7.6 meters long. Its head is 76 centimeters long and the neck is 54 centimeters long. The body is 2.7 meters in length and 68 centimeters in width, and the tail is 3.7 meters long.

The dragon’s head is in a triangle shape. Its mouth is 43 centimeters long. The widest part of the head is 32 centimeters long. The horns project from the widest part of the head, and are symmetrical and 27 centimeters long. They are a little bit curved and tilted, which makes the fossil look very much like the legendary dragon.

The China dragon was a reptile animal living in the ocean in Triassic Period about 200 million years ago. It was an amphibian. It spent most of its time living in water, although sometimes it walked on land. It also laid eggs on land. The animal lived on fish and small reptile animals.

This is the first time that China found a dragon fossil with a pair of horns. Its discovery provides some evidence to prove that dragons might really have horns. The fossil provides important scientific information for people to trace the origin of the Chinese legendary dragon.
go

This post has been edited by owlscrying: 01 July 2007 - 10:08 AM

[The Lone Wolf]

they must of done carbon dating...hmm so they were alive during the jarrasic and triassic period.hmmm

[telirium]

is this real or not? none of the major news sites are reporting it and if it is real that would seem very odd not to report something like this.

[louie]

Yep nothing on the news, and that is a remmarkably well preserved fossil.

[Cradle of Fish]

Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake. Move this to the crytopzoology forum.

[Archosaur]

I am afraid that the picture displayed is not a fossil. Flesh would not be in that condition after a hundred years, much less a hundred million. Prehaps it was posted as art, rather that as the fossil itself.

As to a horned marine reptile in the Triassic, it is certainly possible. Naming it a dragon makes it no more the ledgendary dragon that the current Komodo Dragon, or a horned Packacephalsaur recently discovered and named dragon.

Who knows, maybe someday someone will find a real dragon?

[Piney]

Quote

Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake

A movie prop. If you read the comments below the article it really shows how gullible people are though.


Lapiche

[draconic chronicler]

Yep, I'd recognize that dragon anywhere. That's the "Frozen mother dragon" from the TV show where they pretended they found a frozen dragon in an ice cave in the Romanian mountains.

Its too bad the writers of that show were such idiots. The kind of creature they depicted would have had no fear of medieval man, it would have destoryed him with impunity. If it really existed, and were merely a predator, it could have easily exterminated mankind centuries earlier. The original dragons of mankind's mythology helped mankind and were consider gods. These later medieval dragonslaying stories were just so much nonsense to enhance the prestige of saints and similar heroes.

[sadistic jellyfish of doom]

I recognize it: It's from a show called "Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real". They pretended to dig up the bones of a dragon and showed how it would be able to fly, E.T.C. Either they were misinformed, or it's a very late advertisement for the show.
EDIT: Draco beat me to it.

This post has been edited by sadistic jellyfish of doom: 03 July 2007 - 12:49 AM

[The Mule]

My cousin did animation for the movie Dragonheart....you should see the pics HE has!

[laylaswings]

Archosaur, on 01 July 2007 - 07:35 PM, said:

I am afraid that the picture displayed is not a fossil. Flesh would not be in that condition after a hundred years, much less a hundred million. Prehaps it was posted as art, rather that as the fossil itself.

As to a horned marine reptile in the Triassic, it is certainly possible. Naming it a dragon makes it no more the ledgendary dragon that the current Komodo Dragon, or a horned Packacephalsaur recently discovered and named dragon.

Who knows, maybe someday someone will find a real dragon?

ummmm, ... fossils can have flesh on them. it can be perserved like a mummy can because salt deposits and other minerals can be found in the matter around the fossil. Dinosaur fossils have been found with a few blood cells perserved on it and even bits of plant matter on thier teeth. There have been mammoths perserved rather well in ice. remember, if the animal itself can be perserved, so can everything else of itself. Any of that can be possible, if the conditions are correct. Wether this fossil is real or not, ... time will tell. =]

[ShadowSot]

The Lone Wolf, on 01 July 2007 - 01:46 AM, said:

they must of done carbon dating...hmm so they were alive during the jarrasic and triassic period.hmmm

No... carbon dating doesn't work over 60,000 years, so no they did not use carbon dating.

Besides, this is a hoax article promoting a still from a discovery show.

[SilverCougar]

laylaswings, on 26 October 2009 - 04:00 AM, said:

ummmm, ... fossils can have flesh on them. it can be perserved like a mummy can because salt deposits and other minerals can be found in the matter around the fossil. Dinosaur fossils have been found with a few blood cells perserved on it and even bits of plant matter on thier teeth. There have been mammoths perserved rather well in ice. remember, if the animal itself can be perserved, so can everything else of itself. Any of that can be possible, if the conditions are correct. Wether this fossil is real or not, ... time will tell. =]

Time tells us that (like other people have pointed out) It's a movie prop.

http://animal.discov...rgence/dragons/ Watch, read, and learn

[SQLserver]

Blatantly fake. Even a cursory glance at that should tell anybody it is not a real fossil. Looks like it is made of rubber or plastic to me.

[SilverCougar]

SQLserver, on 27 October 2009 - 02:03 AM, said:

Blatantly fake. Even a cursory glance at that should tell anybody it is not a real fossil. Looks like it is made of rubber or plastic to me.

Because it's a movie prop =P