You still haven't provided any sources DC.

In fact he tried to use Jones' book to back him up about thunderbirds and it oddly didn't.

DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND THE POINT??? AGAIN YOU OVERLOOK WHAT IS RIGHT THER IN YOUR FACE AND IS ABOUT TO HIT YOU!!! WHY??? ARE YOU AFRAID THAT IT WILL REVEAL THE TRUTH??? THAT YOU’RE DRAGON LOGIC IS NOTHING THAN FANCY AND to be frank-POOR LOGICAL REASONING!

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR SPELLING.... DO YOU SEE THAT THE TOPIC AS SPELLING??? If you do then by all means your logic is haywire!

LET ME MAKE IT SIMPLIER TO UNDERSTAND, SO THAT EVEN 3rd graders would understand. AND I SURE HOPE AND PRAY THAT THIS TIME YOUD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND TOO, or do you intend to avoid the topic??? BUT FOR YOUR OWN SAKE I WILL SIMPLIFY THIS FOR YOU. SO SIMPLE THAT IT’S EVEN NUMERIC. AND I EXPECT THAT YOUR REPLY WOULD BE SATISFYINGLY INTELLECTUAL. THAT WOULD MEAN BY THE WAY THAT YOU'D ANSWER THE SPECIFICS AND NOT DEVIATE FROM ANYTHING ELSE. ANSWER AND NOT DEVIATE.

1. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SPELLING. NOT ABOUT THE SPELLING. NOT THE SPELLING.(simplified) I am not talking about your poor spelling. that means you don’t need to answer this and there is no need to talk about this.

2. DIFFEND THAT YOU DO NOT LACK COHERENCE BY POINTING OUT WHAT IS DRAGON AND WHAT IS DRAGON-LIKE.
(Simplified) tell me us what is dragon and dragon like. (Most simplified) Tell us what you think is a "dragon" then tell us what you think is "dragon-like".(superlative to the highest level simplification) you need to answer this since you think/say/claim that almost anything you could get your hands on is a dragon, and why others you deduce to as not.

3 You have amply demonstrated by the Jones accusations, and the childish pettiness you demonstrate now, that I should not have any respect for you.. YOU USED HIM AS A SOURCE AND REFERED TO HIM AND HIS WORK, THERE IS NO JONES ACCUSATIONS. (simplified)you picked and plucked out his idea and his book as a reference, I am asking you why would you pick and note him if he is not even supporting your ideas. (most simplified) you + Dragon Universal Entity + an instinct for dragons + the book and the idea as you have now admitted is non supportive idea + and you still used it to make your post sound convincing.(superlative to the highest level simplification) we aint talking about you "convincing" but you using that even it doesn’t support your idea so that means you don’t have to talk bout being convincing.

Simplified enough? do not deviate.. again do not deviate. I’m not even ganna talk about your spelling anymore. or your sources. So if you answer anything or even say anything that’s not included on the 3, well you’re not supposed to.

a very unprofessional habit, habit because this wouldn’t be the first time he did this. a very immature mistake

that would be the most intriguing idea so far since i lost faith in your logic, "get a human stand in". not that im convince with what your saying. (simplification) i am not impressed and i am not talking about your dragon in this post, i am talking about "getting a human stand in" as being a good and interesting idea.

OPPS he did it again, yep DC did it again. (if my memory serves me right, Britney Spears had a song with that cliche "OPPS I DID IT AGAIN", could there be a link?? im refereng to mentallity) (simplification) DC you did it again. great habbit for a "writter".

i very much aggree, it is so basic. (simplified) DC might say something again that we think like preschoolers, or teens in junior high.

Yea i've noticed that. he says these things even though everybody has been completely logical on the subject, and providing actual facts from legitimate sources.

I'll post this again because I posted it earlier and nothing has changed:

Unfortunately this thread is liable to go round in circles indefinately, the points being presented are falling on deaf ears i'm afraid and people are becoming understandably more and more frustrated; the same arguments are being repeated over and over and no progress is being made.

Unless we start to see some progress here and unless everyone can contribute without becoming hostile and frustrated then there's going to be little choice but to close the thread; we're not achieving anything here but a loss of sanity.

I've never known a thread quite like it.

DC, are you referring to:

Link - Yaw/Lotan

I must also bring attention that some scholars dispute the existence of the alternative names of YAM, claiming it is a mistranslation of a damaged tablet.

To be honest unless DC can actually post some evidence or refer adequately to some evidence that does support his claims specifically i see little point in continuing this debate.

like the logic being used it does seem circular.

The theory is patched together mostly from other people's work, which is never referenced and passed off as his own 'genius'...and in most cases only supports small parts of his argument. Most is old, and contentious at that...but is presented as irrefutable fact, this again is highly misleading and dishonest.

and probably breaks a forum rule or two.

The only part of the theory that really can be said to be his is the proposition that a creature exists which ill call ODE (original dragon entity) which is the source of all dragon myths/religions and vaguely related cryptid sightings from around the world and also some that are unrelated.. That these are immortal, have been genetically modified by some creator god, and were the 'gods' of all civilized races. Im sure there are a few similar theories about out there that claim the same....besides some minor 'twist' or other. when pressed for clarity on critical issues the author of the theory is elusive, self-contradictory, or admittedly speculative; the theory breaks down and lacks coherence. Even a single physical form cannot be decided upon....this keeps avenues of cross identification between 'dragon-like' phenomena possible...as a number of people have hit upon.

None of the evidence presented ever supports this part of the theory that can be claimed as the author's own. It is pure speculation and fancy dressed up in the marginal theories of others. And decidedly dodgey interpretations of actual historical information.

None of the evidence has been accepted by anyone who doesnt already have a 'wish' or 'belief' that 'dragons' exist or did at one time exist. Noone with a grain of objectivity has given this theory much credit.

Most of the posting here has been concerned with correcting blatantly misused information. "no it's not a diamond".

The problems with the theory are compounded by the approach of its champion towards the evidence presented against it. And that's being polite.

Nothing new or worthwhile seems to be forthcoming, so we appear to be at a dead-end.

One thing can be sure, someone who hopes to make money from a book about this is never going to see it any other way.

Indeed, most of the academic work is speculation in itself, and there are a number of varying theories/opinions. There are a few good articles written about the Ugarit finds, mostly available on JSTOR for those with access. These often conflict with each other.
No definite conclusion is possible.

One has Yam as cognate with Tiamat. The similarities, besides the name[ta- (serpent) + yam- (ocean) + -at (fem. ending)] are there in the story of his opposition to Baal Hadad. but again this is just speculation....it goes to show that no theory about him can be presented as 'fact'.

I perfectly agree. Progress would be made as soon as questions have been answered I believe. but it is a very interesting thread and has been my favorite. DC is commendable in getting information and rebutting, though most of us think that these apparently are hallow due to a lot of reasons, but his Malleability is really beyond normal.(simplification) I’m commending you DC, that’s all commendation for you.

I must admit that this has been a test of patience and discipline that i might have done poorly, but id say this too, I have seen a number of intellects with excellent debating, reasoning, logical and researching skill in this thread. More that you’d encounter in a full semester at the university. Again i would give up and arm just to have one of you in the classroom.

Pueblos? Dude they where abandoned because of a famine!! so the people moved!! also i dont need to read a book to know my old religon i grew up with my mom and grandparents teaching me about grandfather sky grand mother river father earth and mother rain. I grew up knowing about our brother bear and sister otter. About the sly fox and the world on a turtles back. And how the bear lost his tail dont not ever tell me what my ancestors belived in because no book can convey it. There was a spirit dragon nothing more. The thunder bird was that!! a bird!!!

i really want dc to read this to prove he has no proof but his word and misconceptions

apparently the reason that your people didnt have dragon gods was because your ancestors were incapable of being 'humane'.

excuse me?

I think i understand why your upset WEREGIRL666', and you have all the right to feel upset. I imagine i would too if i were in your shoes.

I think there is a lesson here to learn from, not only D.C. but all of us, specially D.C.

This is a result of claiming something that has no real bassis with strong supporting resources. We should only assume and present this as assumptions only unless WE HAVE A REAL SOURCE THATS SUPPORTS THIS and nothing less. (simplified) this is what happens when you say things about something else saying "brilliant scientist, this guy, that guy said," and "this supports this but not really but still im ganna put it there on my post just to prove that it supports what im saying though the entire book, idea, author thinks otherwise and im gana insist on this cause thats what i think and really dont care what others think of what im doing or the result of what im doing might be very harmful". it is very important to have reliable and doubtless sources and be accurate as much as possible from it

well still he shouldnt act like he knows the world with what seems like a fifth graders mind and citing skills

apparently so, the experiment failed with the maya...which is probably why their civilisation failed (i hope im getting this right), and if your ancestors were as humane as the Aztecs they would have got a dragon to watch over them too, but sorry your ancestors like the Germans were incapable of being humane, so they were dragon fodder....like most native north americans...probably includes blackfeet too.
ill fetch the quotes......

actually the aztecs where slaughterd im half aztec im cherokee aztec and irish fyi the dragon iswhat caused the aztecs doom you see they saw a horse that cortez rode on and assumed he was a god so didnt fight him and when they did they died i have this in the thread el dorado just so you know.....oh so god is evil? because germans where christans!!

But they did. The Anasazi black dragon. This may be the water bringing diety Pululukon, that has wings and emits a thunderous roar (accordng to Jones, p.17. Thunder, plus wings, = thunderbird. Just like the piasa bird, a reptiles by our standards, but because it flew it sems to be considered a bird to the native americans. Ah, but the white man wants his thunderbird kachina souveniers.to look like a eagle, not a dragon.

check it out.

The dragons had to stop eating them (Grmans) when they became Chrisitans, how else do you think such violent pagans were converted.

Nessie stopped eating picts when Columba announced in latin (probably), that 'she' could no longer harm the people with his coming and their conversion. And Nessie seems pretty well behaved since then.

no no the dragon is only a spirit. the thunder bird was a bird who brought the rain but wasnt seen so maybe could be a dragon but it wasnt a god

wow and still no proof and a stupid argument im sorry but im insulted im not german but thats immature

i have to agree, at first my friend Till, who's German found it amusing...but now he's just insulted.
It seems that my folk too would be still preyed upon were it not for Christianity reaching this place. We were obviously too primitive and violent....as opposed to those nice peaceful christians.

I have been watching Dragon threads since I signed on to UM, actually it was dragons that alerted me to this site, and I have DC vehemently defending his position that dragons, in whatever form they eventually took existed either Real Creatures (hence being placed in Crypto/Myth/Legend Section emphasis on Myth and Legend) or being of a more Ethereal bend. I see the same pattern with these thread as as I do the threads on Demons/Daemons. For every believer there is at least one Non-believer, does that make the Believer's argument any less correct, no, but at the same time the Non-believer is allowed to disagree, provided s/he does so coherently and with civility.


To be sure, Dragons would still Feast on the flesh of Christians, Jews and Muslims, if their boss wasn't your precious God. (Who would lose all power if everyone stopped believing.)

Seriously DC, Vita Columba is not a historically accurate account and is a second hand one (by over 100 years) and was used to promote Christianity.

No, she is upset becasue Grem essentially put "words in my mouth". I have shown that there is a direct correlation between SOME more pritive human groups and their tendency to have 'evil' dragons in their memories/myths compared to more advanced civilizations that recognized 'good' dragons/dragon gods.

Grem then made the inference that I considered 'her' people primitive. But this seems to be more based on Grem's instigations and WGs unfamiliaity with the legends. The flying serpent (dragon) with voice of thunder and life giving rain was considered good, although fearsome. I do not recall stories of it eating humans in the pueblo culture, but it is depicted as a sharp toothed predator.

Did they accept human offerings in exchange for 'bringing rain'? I don't know. But we do know that some of these people people's did practice cannibalism from archaeological discoveries. Whether WE believe in these water bringing, thunder belching flying creatures or not, the native peoples DID, and if rain did not come and the crops died, and if the pueblos were abandoned, they would have surmised that the 'dragon' deity was angry. There is far more evidence throughout native america, that the bringer of water was reptile like, not bird like, and we see this around the entire world. White chroniclers largely ignored this, and not believing in flying reptiles, assumed these creatures were always birds. Now we know differently from more detailed interpretation of artifacts and the remains of legends..... already contaminated by European contamination for 300 years...... by Spanish Catholoicism which would have identified flying reptile deities as the embodiment of thier satan. There is plenty of evidence that the Spanish connected the reptile deities of the Americas with the Satan dragon they believed in.

Many people hold the 'water dragon' incident in the River Ness to be a 'relieable' first sighting of Nessie. Understand that I said from the beginning that a basic premise of my dragon theory is that the creator entity (El) of original Judaism is the 'creator' who is also acknowledged by 'theists' (that inclulude many scientists) , and that it appears that the dragons of universal human belief were some kind of intellgient reptiles used as his assistants to insure the survival of mankind.

Obviously, to anyone who does not support the view of an intellligent creator entity, cannot support the intelligent dragons, and therfore only serve as 'hecklers' to those trying to discuss the theory in an adult manner.

The statement is consistent with the evidence. It doesn't matter if the Christians were more or less peaceful, it matters that one of the two amalgamated 'gods' of this religon (Yahweh), happens to be a dragon, and generally speaking, dragons do not have a good reputation in what little we have left of pagan german beliefs, and they were clearly more primitive than the classical world that embraced the 'dragon god'. I am of German ancestry too, but I am also aware of how primitive the ancient German were until they had enough civilized slaves to make a difference. The theory makes a lot of sense. Not to people who do not believed in an intelligent creator, but if you don't, you should not be disrupting this thread in the first place.

No Matt, "oddly it did". Page 17 speaks of a flying reptile deity of Southwestern tribes ithat belched thunder and controlled rain.

Jones was simply careful not to actually use the word 'thunderbird' becasue of upsetting the Neo Native American myth that they are eagles instead of dragons caused by Christian brainwasing that the dragon rain bringers were 'Satan' over the past 300 years.

Actually i put no words in anyone's mouth....i took words that DC had written, which i found preposterous...and re-applied them here and in the correct context.

Weregirl666 said she was of the Cherokee nation, and did not have any dragon gods.

I gave the explanation that DC put forward ... that her ancestors must not have been capable of acting humanely.

Just like the Germans.

I provided the exact words that DC wrote.

I dont think i misinterpreted them. or made anything up.

But I was right. Page 17. A flying, rain bringing , thunder belching reptile, "bird". Thunderbird. But we see the truly immature and unproffessional people jumping on any 'bandwagon'. You, for instance.

I understand your idea DC, but that does not mean people who are currently believers in Abrahamic religions believe in dragons even there belief grew out of that it is not what they believe.
Vita Columba is not taken as a hugely accurate historical record. If you wish to show me any thing that suggests otherwise feel free, but as I said it was written over 100 years after Columba's death and even states he killed a boar with the power of his voice. It is religious propaganda not a historical record.

Can you back that up or is that just your opinion?

so the only people who should be allowed to participate in this thread are those who believe in a creator god?
dont think so.

and you dont know what i believe.

I dont believe your theory, that's for sure...it makes no sense.

Any theory that begins...."If we accept the.....then..." is always seriously flawed because it immediately demands a degree of acceptance before any argument is made.

if we accept that there is some truth in the stories we tell our children....then Santa Claus is real.....
if we accept that there is truth in Irish folklore then leprechauns are real....
if we accept that there is truth in fast-food marketing then Ronald Mcdonnald is real....

its the same thing.

The problem Saru is that the dragon theory is based on the premise of the existence of an intelligent "creator'. I stated this from the onset, and it is those people who accept that premise who support my theories, and there are many. For those people that dimiss all notion of any kind of god that could have used the dragons as a surrogate, they should not even contributing on this thread, for they are simply hecklers. I have always stated that the intelligent dragons of world wide human belief COULD ONLY EXIST if there is any truth to the existence of a God/Deity that created the dragons or modified them from some yet undiscovered species.

I am probably as familar as anyone here on paleontology, evolution etc. and ACCEPT the fact the intelligent dragons could not be here if there is no truth to an intelligent creator that broght them about. So these people attacking my ideas because they do not beieve in an intellgient entity that COULD have created/modified the dragons are contributing nothing to what could have been a freindly, civil discussion.

If you as moderator asked anyone who DOES NOT BELIEVE in a God/Creator entity, simply NOT to participate in this thread, since they are opposed to the very premise of the theory, we could have an intelligent discussion about dragons without the constant heckling. You have a choice not to close a very popular thread about apparently a very emotional subject, if people who dismiss the theory of an intlligent creator not even post here. Should this be in a Religion section then? Probably not, becasue these dragons may be the best explanation for many, if not all of the supposedly, large reptile-like crytids sighted all over the world for thousands of years, yet oddly, have left no physical remains , nor can be caught, therby suggesting it is either all imagination, or a kind of creature with abiities we do not understand.

When I have not listed a specfic source, it is becasue the information should be easy to google or common knowledge.

If you are unable to find a source for ONE specific claim at a time, state it, and I will provide the source. HINT: you can also search UM for my many cited sources.

Exactly my point.

Any theory that begins...."If we accept the.....then..." is always seriously flawed because it immediately demands a degree of acceptance before any argument is made.

if we accept that there is some truth in the stories we tell our children....then Santa Claus is real.....
if we accept that there is truth in Irish folklore then leprechauns are real....
if we accept that there is truth in fast-food marketing then Ronald Mcdonnald is real....

its the same thing.

No its not the same thing.

EVERY human culture believed in what we now collectively call dragons, and EVERY human culture believed in a supernatural realm/gods/deities. Many people who still accept there may be a creator deity actually find my theory plausible. I know becasue intelligent people have read, and approved of my manuscript, and I have hundreds of messages of support form people who find what I say quite plausible.

Anyone who cannot discern the difference between Santa Clause and world wide dragon beliefs probably shouldn't be here since their only contributuion is that of a heckler. Dragon like creatures are cited by eyewitnesses all over the world even today. How many people claim to see Santa Claus (and I don't mean the department store variety). And more important, for five thousand years our ancestor spoke of them as real creatures. Santa Claus as we know 'him' is really the creation of one 19th century poet.

You should really know better to say something so foolish, but then, you seem to be one of those hecklers.

you seem to be arguing against your own style of theory here...i said....if we accept that the stories we tell our children have truth, then santa is real....

I didnt say that santa was real, but if you accept that the stories we tell our children are true then so a good case can be made for Santa.

Just like those leprechauns....if we accept that Irish folklore is true, then leprechauns are real....hide gold, wear green, etc...
Anyone who doesnt believe that irish folklore is true shouldnt comment.

I dont believe you are allowed a thread that states, 'if you dont believe ina creator you aren;t allowed to post.' That aside many of the points that have been debated specifically in this thread have not touched upon that issue. If someone wishes to dispute how you have represented your sources or how they percieve the evidence and conclusions differently it is their right to do so. If the 'facts' you state do indeed so solidly proove your theory no need for belief in a supernatural entity woud have to exist. The evidence for each aspect of your case both historical and modern should be able to stand up to scrutiny no matter what someones spiritual beliefs are. There has been up to now no discussion really of who believes in God and I cannot see how you are dividng those who agree with you and those you dont by this standard. Many many many people believe in a god of somekind and do not believe in dragons and woud dispute your points or evidence. This is not a valid way of defending your debate. No matter how much your theory hinges on this idea (which i think detracts from its validity as a solid theory but thats a seperate point) the evidence and your interpretation of it is open to debate by anyone and if they choose not to believe this initial premise it does not make their points and counter evidence invalid.

If I as a moderator asked anyone who does not believe in God to not participate in this thread then I wouldn't be a very good one. This is an open forum, I'm not going to ask people not to participate in a thread because their beliefs do not conform to yours, nor should the contributions of those who don't believe in a God be disregarded or dismissed out of hand as 'non-adult', 'disruptive' or 'heckling'.

If you don't want to hear from anyone who has an opposing viewpoint or belief on the subject then I suggest against contributing any further to this forum, we do not and will not host a custom discussion where only those with specific beliefs or opinions are allowed to contribute.

You are getting pretty desperate when the best you can do is quibble over the use of the words 'dragon' and 'dragon-like'.

And back to Jones, I am surprised you cannot understand what I thought was something no one here should have trouble with.

1. I never stated Jones supported the idea that dragons were real creatures. Please show me where I ever said that.

2. Jones says that every human culture has dragon legends. He uses his knowelge of human legends, and access to anthropological collections the world over to prove this. He was actually used as a source in a TV show that proposed dragons MIGHT be real even though he himself never states he believes that.

3. I was attacked here for simply quoting Jones, who stated that the Inuits believed in a giant man eating "saurian". I NEVER said he believed it.

4. In fact, this legend is actually far more supportive of my theory that the dragons are real, because the Inuits lived in an environment for thousands of years in which there were no reptiles. So the Inuits actually seeing such creatures is the most logical explanation for their beliefs.

5. Carl Sagan might have said that the Inuits were simply recalling ancient memories of dinosaurs imprinted in our mammalian brains. But it sounds to me that these may have been actual events.

No DC because you have claimed them to be real creatures that are still alive today and I feel that is not the case, I have every right to comment and disagree with you and I have the right to disagree with your conclusions. It does not make me a heckler.

I am saying that an acknowledgement of a creator entity is the premise of the whole dragon theory, so if people are unwilling to accept that premise, why attack it further? The only explanation that I can surmise is that something about 'dragons' really bothers them.

Obviously, if we were talking about pixies or unicorns, there would not be all of this 'drama'. I guess Carl Sagan may be right, humans really do have dragons 'hotwired' in their brains'. But is it because our brains still remember dinosaurs, or Jones composite dragons made up of snakes, crocs, eagles and felines still terrify us, or maybe we should judge 5000 years of eyewitness accounts at fact value, and conclude they really saw, and therefore feared the dragons.

No as i said beofre many of the specific points that have been discussed have not involved the whole creator issue. If someone disagrees with a specific piece if evidence or a view you state it doesnt mean they have a problem with dragons. If someone stated pxies existed someone else would come along and ask for evidence and sources just as they have done here. Most of the debates here have centered on interpretation of religous texts and ancient mythology. You are surely aware that there are many other ways to interpret these details to the one you adhere to and as such ther ewilll be people of differing views.
It is more likely that they are passionate about these texts or historic integrity when interpreting mythology that leads to such passion rather than dragons per se.
Many occasions someone makes a counter point tha is dismissed as them not understanding the information this also will cause an inflamed debate.
The hot tempers are more to do with the areas discussed within presenting your case and the manner in which it is presented that any specific issue with dragons.

Because if the premise is fundamentally flawed, why shouldn't people attack it ?

Thanks you kindly, I was avoiding stating that in my reply and focussed instead on the issues beyond it.