I'd follow you into the gates of hell.

what the *bleep* are you talking about dude??


oh and evidently they found the frozen corpse of a dragon in the alps, and although i have nothing to back this up i am shure of its source.
so it just proves to all of you that its true dragons did exsist and they probably do today, we just cant find them anywhere

Please stop: You're embarrassing yourself. Consider quitting while you're behind.

and i should why?? im pretty shure my info is solid man though i cant back it up why would wiki lie to me?

and your are talking about what now?

No, they didn't. Don't be silly.

For once mattshark does have his facts right. The film in question was a "mockudrama", not about a real dragon. After all, everyone knows that mere humans in medieval times with their primitive weapons couldn't kill a real dragon as the film purports.

Ah you see, trebuchet's only seem primitive till they drop a rock on you head.

well then so much for useing wikipedia to prove my point in there exsistance.... well i still say they exsisted and that wont change!! and they do still live in 2 ways
1. as the Komodo Dragon (really a giant moniter lizard but hey the name says "Dragon") and
2. in our hearts and minds (those who believe that is)

Don,t forget Bruce Lee movies as well

Yes, but in the film, a human with a mere sword somehow managed to stab a forty foot long, consumate predator with much larger arms, thrashing tail, and a fiery breath weapon. This is as absurd as a mouse killing the cat.

It would be a pretty stupid dragon that would just stand there and allow a rock from a trebuchet to land on it.

dude your sooo right even though i havent seen the movie (btw what was it called again) it sounds really stupid, i mean cummon 1 blast of fire from the Dragon and its all melted, his shield, his armor, his sword, the rest of his body... etc the point is there no way in the 9 hells of Baator that 1 knight could kill a dragon unless the dragon was really stupid of which i dont think it was/is i mean all dragons are intellegent and the reason we have found none is because they dont want us to find them am i right or am i right?

I think it's heart warming DC has found an acolyte.

A lovely little sidekick

cute you all think me a sidekick well i h8 to burst your bubble BUT I AINT NO1'S SIDE KICK!!

as far i am able to see we simply agree on most things including the Dragonic

If dragons were that smart, they'd be able to overthrow our chokehold on the planet and become the dominant species. BUT considering no one's ever met a physical dragon....I'd have to assume, no they aren't smart. Do hunters ever find bear remains? No, because bears go in caves to die unless they're killed by hunters, and are bears smarter than people? No. So if dragons actually existed, just because we cannot find their remains doesn't make them intelligent beings. But, there's no evidence to suggest dragons exist at all except in legends, so they probably don't exist; at least physically, that is.

But it was our ancestors themselves that stated they were intelligent beings that taught them agriculture, animal husbandry, etc. We believed they were our gods.

They may not have been particuarly benificient however. It was to the "dragon god's" advantage if their human population was fruitful and prosperous for in insured them plenty of fatted calves, first born sons, and virgins (based on Yahweh's recorded preferences). Oh, and they all seemed to like alcoholic beverages as well, including Yahweh.

Worldwide legends confirm that dragons are subordinate to a greater intelligence that may be behind the order in the universe, and why life has thrived on this tiy speck of that universe.

Once the human populatin was well established and taught the rudiments of civlization, the dragons ceased being are 'gods', but were still commonly reported up until the last few centuries, when modern weapons made them even more reclusive. Now they are extremely wary and usually seen and photographed only at very far distances.

hmm... well perhaps, but seeing as man has all of this nuclear weaponry (of which one would assume they know about i mean hello the cold war) perhaps they deem the planet to unworthy to rule or simply dont want to

Well, if they're so smart and powerful couldn't they just try talking to us and maybe they're powerful enough to not be hurt by nuclear weapons? Not all humans are complete brutes you know. And they could potentially turn our future around if they took control and showed us a more peaceful way of existence. This is all theoretical of course....

Wow, you truly amaze me with your idiocy. The place you told peple to look gives the exact defintion, and says NOTHING about giant animals, snakes, dinosaurs, dragons, absolutley nothing!!! It says it is a fetish of being eaten alive, period. I never stated anywhere in my post about being murdered, you made that idiotic assumption. Please just shut up and go away.

Ironically, I have yet to see mattshark post one untrue or false fact about anything, much unlike yourself.

Well, DC never claimed to have exclusivity to insanity.

Wrong as always. YOU said they wanted to be canibalized and eaten "Hannibal Lector" style.

Do you know what is meant by being Eaten Alive? Realistically this would require a large enough animal to swallow a person while they were still alive, and this is why snakes, dinosaurs and dragons are popular subjects in their fantasies. I told you to read their fetish stories.

Their 'job' seems to have been to insure our survival in our formative years, nothing more. Even by revealing themselves, it would reveal there really is a 'greater power', and stifle our initiative. The real creator does not want to be worshipped, his dragon assistants did.

Though they apparently protected us and taught us, it was for their own selfish motives that they probably didn't even realize. But the creator knew these creatures would make the 'best' gods. They were described as good shepherds, protecting their flocks, but like human shepherds also ate their sheep sometimes.

And no, our weapons are too powerful to resist. And shortly after they left us on our own, they began to create nonsense stories about their heroes killing thier onetime gods.

Pleasant as always DC,

you state that the earliest man believed them to have been taught cultivation, irrigation etc. by dragons.
This is not the case in Sumerian mythology.

Why?
They are 'humanoid' in these stories. And while they may occasionally be given the epithet 'Great Serpent', and in some cases have originated with serpent cult and totemic symbolism; the stories that link them to this role of patronage and instruction come from this period when they were humanoid.

There is no evidence to say that the ancients before writing in sumeria, and before the gods were believed to be humanoid, believed that they were instructed by Great Snakes in technology.

so technically you are wrong to say...
At this point they believed their gods to be humanoid. as their artwork, and writings show. Their pre-writing ancestors may have had a serpent cult, or mythological tradition in their culture, but we dont know what they believed.

Yeah especially when such a gargantuan dragon does 4d8 bite, 4d6/4d6 claws, 2d8/2d8 wing buffet, 4d6 tail slap, 4d8 crush and 2d6 tail sweep on top of breath weapon 16d10(31dc) and 28d12+196 hp. Though an epic level fighter, with the right build of class and feats (probably include ranger with favoured enemies dragons, reptiles and magical beasts + weapon master) armed and equipped with a suitable dragonslaying set (so some kind of dragon/wyrmsbane weapon of choice, armour with high resistence/ damage immunity, ring and misc items to buff magic resistance, fear immunity... you get the picture), could take down the dragon with ease. But there's always the option of using the Draconomicon rulesets..

Does it sound like I'm being mean? Probably, but so far you're showing that your knowledge on the subject is primarily influenced by WoTC and other modern fantasy. Now as much as there are those who disagree with DC, the one thing he can't really be faulted on is that he has come to his conclusions by actually reading real books and texts as opposed to the bizzare mis-interpretations of ancient myth and legend that Gary Gygax and the rest of his pot smoking chums dreamed up in the mid 1970s.
Don't get me wrong, the first real fantasy series I read was the Dragonlance Chronicles, and I was thoroughly captivated by it. So much, that fantasy replaced sci-fi as my favourite reading fiction. But I've always had an interst in mythology, with ancient Greek legends being my earliest memories. So when my peer group started getting into D&D, it quickly lost me with its glaring inaccuracies.

Which is where we come to the point of my rambling post. It's all well and good to agree with someone, but first of all you need to familiarise yourself with the literature that the more knowledgable sides of the debate are basing their arguments from. I'm sure DC has a few good recommendations for you, as would Archosaur and lil gremlin. As for me, I'll just outrightly tell you that I don't see a link between winged serpants of S. America, Asian dragons and Western ones, but that in the hands of a skilled writer they do make for a good fantasy novel.
But what I would recommend is that you read the Illiad, Odessy, Beowulf (the actual saga, translated is fine for now), any book that is an accurate collection of ancient Greek myths and any of the classic cannon of western literature (the links on this wiki page will help get you started Link)
Whilst this won't expand your knowledge about dragons, it will prepare you mentally for seeking out those books and texts that will lead you to those answers you're looking for

Wrong ASSUMPTIONS again. For a person to be eaten alive, they do not have to be swallowed whole. That is your assupmtion. Obviously, you cannot handle the concept of knife and fork. 99% of the world, when thinking of being eaten alive, would not think large reptile. They would think REALISTICALLY about large felines, bears, and yes, humans, they would eat them one small chunk at a time. The LAST thing that would probably pop into anyones head when the thought of being eaten alive would be a MYtHOLOGICAL creature that does not exist.
So, now, since you so rudely try to accuse me of being wrong, show me ANY definition that states vorephelia has ANYTHING to do with large reptiles, lizards, or dragons. I'll be waiting, laughing.

This logic is so flawed!!! How did they teach anyone anything, without showing themselves??? Rather hard to do.

Mattshark is actually very smart, and above all a professional, and yet DC claims he is "always wrong" though I doubt highly that Draconic Chronicler is a professional in the same areas as Mattshark, especially seeing as DC is the one who is 'Always wrong'.

Wrong, as always, Grem.

Real anthropologists like Campbell, who was an expert in near east religion stated categorically that the early deities were "monsters", ie "dragons". Later, these peoples believed the beastly gods could change to human form, and even as late as the Neo Babylonian Empire, when Enki was renamed EA, we see him described in one of his hymns as a monstrous, scale covered, sharp toothed reptile. And to illustrate that Marduk was Enki's son, Enki in dragon form is almost always placed by his side.

You can speculate all you want, but we have the ancient hymns that prove I am correct.

While dragons are conceivable creatures, reported all over the world by the ancients, and even today as "plesiosaurs", "nessies", etc. I believe it is a bit unrealistic to imagine these dragons could actually compress their molecules and transform into humans.

Enki, Enlil, Ishtar, Ningishzida and others of theSumerian pantheon are all called dragons and described as dragons, and passages about Yahweh also suggest a draconic form such as spewing fire, having great wings, devouring cattle and apparently virgins and children, etc. It appears all of them were believed to be able to change into a human form. This is suggested even of Yahweh in certain passages.

But no, I do not believe the dragons can actually change into a human form. This is an embellishment.

I don't believe I have ever been proven wrong here. You simply don't know enough about these subjects to understand this. Please show me where I have been "wrong".

I could however I'd prefer you show me where Mattshark has been wrong. I wasn't trying to attack you, I was trying to tand up for mattshark you see.

Of course they showed themselves in the past. That's why we have all of the dragon legends. But many humans today evidntly believe their ancestors were fools who worshipped imaginary dragons because they found a large bone.

We see the dragons making less and less of an impact on mankind in every succeeding century, until by the 18th century, they had all but disappeared save for ocean sightings.

I see no problem with believing that.

Wrong again.

It is impossible to be "eaten alive" by another person or a bear or big feline. After the first couple bites you would be dead.

Like I said, READ their stories. These women fantasize that it is a wonderful, erotic experience to squirm around alive inside the throat and stomach of large animals like dragons, dinos, pythons, etc. Oh, and I forgot giant frogs, also very popular.

They DON'T Fantasize about the horrible pain of being torn apart by a bear lion or human cannibal. Check out a site called "Eka's portal". It is one of the largest vorephile sites. I discovered it by accident because of the many references to dragons. The vast majority of the art and stories depictshumans and furry humanoids being swallowed alive, and dragons are one of the favorite predators.

Like it or not, those are the facts.

Ahem, are you going to reply to my previous post?

you see no problem in believing what?

im going to ignore that shot at me.... however that is a place there are many dimentions and that may just be one

That the ancients were just making up dragon stories or lying.

Seriously Im not having a shot at you, but you're embarrasing yourself.

I'm confused... I thought he was refering to me...

@Dragon Seeker, whose post are you ignoring?

Oh, maybe both of us.

Not at all. They knew no better. Those whom I believe are fools are those who insist upon believing in dragons today, in spite of no eyewitness reports, fossilized or recent remains, nor any spec of physical evidence.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2149210

I think it you were shown to be incorrect with your assertions about seals and Loch Ness.
I believe you chose to disagree with scientific papers over cetacean and shark feeding habits too.

not sure about this campbell fellow, could you provide a ref? sounds familiarly suspect. I bet you have taken what he says out of context.

Im surprised you haven't read Thorkild Jakobsen at all, he is perhaps the best respected expert on Sumerian, Akkadian, and Mesopotamian culture.
He would give your propositions a big belly laugh....well he would if he were still alive.

finally, 'embellishment'??? you are sooo correct to spot this, why the idea sounds preposterous...dragons cannot transform into humans, any idiot knows that...i mean, what would happen if one had just eaten a cow whole, and then tries to transform....or does so by accident....could be messy.

no the whole idea of big immortal dragons with a dimensional drift capability...fire breathing, maiden gulping and ale-guzzling....that i can deal with...but to suggest that they can turn into humans....what a loon. Its obviously a lie that some storyteller threw in to make it sound more impressive.

He won't reply. And if he does he won't give sources. And if he does they'll be completely irrevlevant. And if they're not pigs will fly amongst the dragons.

There are hundreds of "eyewitness" reports. If you knew more about the ancient and medieval worlds, you would know that belief in dragons was universal, as it was until around the 16th century. All of the 'scientific' /natural history books of the time described them.

You simply do not know enough about those times to make any kind of intelligent comment.

Sorry Grem, but you made claims you cannot support. These gods were described as literal dragons right down to their drool in the ancient cunieform tablets. Sure they said they could look like people too, it made them feel more comfortable if their gods could at least be 'like them' some of the time. I am glad you can see the folly of enormous dragons transforming into humans. So we you maintain they never looked
like dragons when they are CALLED DRAGONS and PHYSICALLY DESCRIBED AS DRAGON on the ancient tablets shows that you don't have a leg to stand on. I believe Jakobsen would agree with me ........ he would have to, because all the evidence supports what I am saying. This doesn't prove the dragons are 'real', but the texts prove that these people believed their gods were enormous dragons that could, if they desired, also assume the form of humans so they could inter-relate in the human world.