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.

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.

No Matt, but since you mentioned it, I had proven you were completely wrong about shark feeding habits. You claimed that sharks only at by taking chunks out of large prey, and then I showed you PROOF that sharks commonly swallow large prey whole, even ALIVE, like the shark that swallowed a slightly smaller shark whole, and it survived the ordeal.

How can someone who calls himself MattSHARK know so little about the feeding habits of real sharks?

And with the exception of specific "sharing" prey, toothed whales basically swallow their prey whole as well. Like with sharks, you need only watch animal planet to prove this.

You also made the claim that no large marine animals could be found today, completely oblivious to the fact that a short time ago the large, Megamouth Shark had been discovered. MattSHARK is wrong again.

Your scapegoat won't work anymore. You have nothing to show to support your contention that dragons are more than old mythology.

Had you left it at that then maybe you would have piqued the interest of those who find ancient mythology interesting. But your claims that dragons are real and still a part of modern life has all but destroyed you credibility.

You may, in fact, be an excellent historian. Hell, you might even be a great guy to have a few beers with. But your constant insistence that dragons actually exist as real creatures leaves me to believe that you are either pulling our collective chains, or you've lost your ability to think rationally.

You have a lot of interesting info to offer. Don't screw it up by going over the edge.

He went over the edge a long time ago.

This isn't much, but here's a link to an article someone wrote about modern day dragon sightings. If anyone cares to check it out. http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/fortean...sh_dragons.html

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.

I made claims i cannot support???? where???
just point them out and ill explain them so you can understand.

as you know i think your whole appraisal of Sumerian mythology is twisted......and Jakobsen would agree with me. How would you know if you have never read him...I find it amazing that someone who professes to be an authority on a subject, and doing 'cutting edge research' hasn't stumbled across THE most respected commentator on a subject....poor research skills evidently.

finally, im not surprised that you didnt spot that my statement was dripping with sarcasm....comprehension skills not a strong point of yours.

They are never called 'dragons', but some are sometimes given the epithet (an honorific and flattering title) Ushumgal. 'Great Serpent'.
The Sumerians DID NOT believe their gods were dragons.

As i said, their gods may well have evolved from earlier cults, which may have in some cases been animalistic....but cows/bulls were by far the most important animalistic god/cult that they had. And the stories that survive have the gods Humanoid going about their creation myths and early adventures....which indicates that they were believed to either have this form or be represented by it.....no dragons here

And with the exception of specific "sharing" prey, toothed whales basically swallow their prey whole as well. Like with sharks, you need only watch animal planet to prove this.

First of all, the discussion was NOT about toothed whales in general, you claimed that a specific species, Orcinus orca, swallows prey whole. Furthermore you claimed that orcas were a significant threat to humans in the wild. Once I pointed out that orcas prey share, you insisted they only do it with large prey items, once I posted evidence to the contrary suddenly changed to, well that is obviously an exception, it does not happen a lot and when they do not do it they do swallow there prey whole, however once again I proved with scientific articles, that this is anything but an exception while you continued to insist you were right and 'backed it up' by 'well I saw it on the Discovery Channel', (you obviously did not even remember or bother to post the title of the program), and you continued to insist you must therefore be clearly right about all your assumptions despite the fact that you were obviously completely oblivious to the fact that prey sharing even occurred before I brought it up in the discussion. Not once did you post anything in the way of primary literature, the only thing you ever sourced came from a website, while I proved the contrary with scientific papers and text books. Strangely enough at some point I ceased to get responses to my answers and you changed your poise on a few points several times, meaning you were wrong in the first place.

As I was able to bring up evidence to the contrary which has a little more credibility than a wildlife program or a random website, you were proven wrong on at least the following 4 points: 1. Orcas always swallow their prey whole 2. Orcas only prey share large prey items 3. Prey sharing is an exception 4. Orcas in the wild are a threat to people and orcas in captivity are less of a danger to people than wild orcas.

There is a difference between 'not being wrong' and 'refusing to admit your are wrong'.

Your scapegoat won't work anymore. You have nothing to show to support your contention that dragons are more than old mythology.

Had you left it at that then maybe you would have piqued the interest of those who find ancient mythology interesting. But your claims that dragons are real and still a part of modern life has all but destroyed you credibility.

You may, in fact, be an excellent historian. Hell, you might even be a great guy to have a few beers with. But your constant insistence that dragons actually exist as real creatures leaves me to believe that you are either pulling our collective chains, or you've lost your ability to think rationally.

You have a lot of interesting info to offer. Don't screw it up by going over the edge.

Dragons, dragons, dragons... First off, what is a dragon? How do we define a dragon...

Breaths fire? No, many dragons in myth and legend don't.
Has wings? Again, many are dipicted and described without?
Large? Dunno about this, don't know enough about the legends, but I certainly don't think it's a definition... do you?
Scales? I'm sure some are described as being leathery...?
Reptiles? Depends. Were the Dinosaurs reptiles? Seems unlikely, what with some of their size. Being cold blooded has problems when you're that big.

"Dragon" doesn't have a definition. So what are we discussing the existence of?

Of course I knew you were being sarcastic, but it was so pathetic, I simply ignored it.

I thought you knew that the term serpent is interchangable with dragon, whether they have wings, legs, etc or not. The Mushushu "dragon" is obviously the form of the Umshumgal, as we see in art of Marduk , with his father Enki in dragon form.

You were proven wrong when you stated that Ushumgal was only an honorific title, becasue you were so unfamiliar with the original source material that you were unaware of the hymns and inscriptions that show such gods as Enki/Ea, Ningishzida, Dumuzi, etc, as literal "dragons", or reptilian Mushushu beasts if you like that term better.

They called their Gods Ushumgals, and this word is generally regarded to mean a great serpent-dragon, and illustrations of these creatures are generally termed to be "dragons" with scaly bodies, wings, long neck, with serpent like horned head, clawed feet, etc. They are described in hyms with scaly bodies, sharp teeth, etc. and some stories speicfically state they can change their form, just like Zeus and other gods in classical mythology. It is all documented, you know it, and you've eaten crow on these points here time and time again. The evidence isn't going to suddenly change for you.

no you didnt.

I disagree with everything else too.

I was never proven wrong on this point....Enki is never in literature or art depicted as a serpent or dragon...unless metaphorically.
by another race of people, much later in time....a demonic aspect of Ea (who is in some ways enki) is thus represented.

Ningi and Dumuzi have been credited with the same feat, of escaping from the demons' bondage by appealing to their heavenly mother and father for help, and was turned into a snake to slink away. This does not make them really a dragon.


p.s. im glad you are finally spelling ushumgal correctly.

what is eating crow?

i think that the evidence as i see it, and as you interpret it, are wildly different....mine is grounded in academic research....yours is fantasy.

No yours is not gounded in Academic research. You simply ignore the evidence you don't agree with. The inscription on the Louvre vase states of the Mushushu dragon, "This is Ningishzida." Haven't you figure out why there is a serpent-dragon who loses his wings in the hebrew Eden story? It is because it is a retelling of the story of Enki (also a serpent dragon) tricking Adam out of eternal life. I believe all scholars of near eastern theology understand this, but you don't, becasue you cannot comprehend that when Enki is called a "great serepent dragon from heaven", that's what it means. The ancients believe that this is the awesome true form of these gods, that yes, could transform to mere, pathetic humans so not to frighten them.

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?

what does that inscription actually say again?

i dont think you understand those stories or how the sumerian religion and mythology worked/developed.
The Sumerians did not believe their gods were dragons.

Thanks. Is it possible to sum up a couple of the most compelling?

No Grem, you're the one that doesn't unerstand. The Sumerian hymns do not say these Gods are 'like' a dragon, they say they ARE dragons, or great serpents if you like that term better, the the great serpent imagery is a mushushu dragon. And yes the Gudea vase is covered in inscriptions, and among them, as I understand it, is the caption that the creature holding the gates of heaven (symbolized by the cadeuces on them), is Ningishzida, just as he is described in the Adapa story, and the origin of the Cherubim guardians of heaven.

YES they believed they were dragons, their hymns said so. But they also state they can change into humans. Dumuzi and Ningishzida are also depicted in human form at times.

Think of Zeus, and hhis ability to change to animals. I do not believe this is possible, but the ancients did.

they use both metaphor and simile, im glad you picked that up....neither are literal. they also say they ARE waves, bulls, eagle's claws, shepherds, kings, princes, floods...etc.

and the epithet is Ushumgal, this is not the same as mushushu. Ushumgal means Great Serpent, and mushushu means Furious Serpent (it is a composite beastie)

Your interpretation of the libation cup is not one i share. Ningishzida is the double headed serpent which rises up the middle of the vessel and reaches the spout, it is flanked on each side by what some have called a mushushu....but may be something else....they do look quite like mushushu but there are differences between these and mushushu depicted elsewhere.
To say that the inscription on the libation cup indicates that one of the flanking composite beasties is Ningi is misleading, it does nothing of the sort. It is a dedication to Ningi, but does not indicate that 'anything' on the vase is a representation of the deity....now if we are talking symbols then its a different story and the vase becomes quite illuminating, no point wasting my time with you on that though.




so NO they didn't believe their gods were dragons at all...and they did invent some interesting hybrid creatures. Only 2 or so beings were depicted as Great Serpents, and that's what they were considered...and slain. When the Humanoid god is victorious he takes the prizes of his victory....the domain of the vanquished, some attributes...and in the case of Enki, an epithet.

All of the stories that survive from mesopotamia can be dated reasonably accurately. These stories come from the time when the gods were seen as humanoid.....we have no pre-anthropomorphic stories that survive intact....which is to be expected.
so, quite simply, at the time of writing these folk did not believe their gods to be dragons, or to have their 'true forms' as dragons.
You do not understand what they did believe.

Bahamut is a beast of Arabic mythology "altered and magnified"[1] from Behemoth. In Arabic myth, Bahamut is a giant fish, described as so immense that a human cannot bear its sight; "[a]ll the seas of the world, placed in one of the fish's nostrils, would be like a mustard seed laid in the desert."[1]

Borges cites one Muslim tradition that describes Bahamut as a fish floating in a fathomless sea. On the fish is a bull called Kujata,[3][4] on the bull, a ruby mountain; on the mountain, an angel; over the angel, six hells; over the hells, earth; and over the earth, seven heavens. Another tradition places the earth's foundation on water, the water on a crag, the crag on a bull's forehead, the bull on a bed of sand, the sand on Bahamut, Bahamut on a stifling wind, and the wind on a mist; what is beneath the mist is unknown.[1] In a similar telling of the hierarchy, Bahamut supports a layer of sand, on which stands a giant bull, on whose forehead rests a mountain of rock which holds the waters in which the earth is located.[2]

According to Borges, Bahamut is the giant fish that Isa (Jesus) beholds in the 496th night of the One Thousand and One Nights. Bahamut in this telling is a giant fish swimming in a vast ocean. It carries a bull on its head; the bull bears a rock, and above the rock is an angel who carries the seven stages of the earths. Beneath Bahamut is an abyss of air, then fire, and beneath that a giant serpent called Falak.[5]

Upon seeing Bahamut, Isa passes into unconsciousness:

At this sight Isa fell down aswoon, and when he came to himself, Allah spake to him by inspiration, saying, 'O Isa, hast thou seen the fish and comprehended its length and its breadth?' He replied, 'By Thy honour and glory, O Lord, I saw no fish; but there passed me by a great bull, whose length was three days' journey, and I know not what manner of thing this bull is.' Quoth Allah, 'O Isa, this that thou sawest and which was three days in passing by thee, was but the head of the fish; and know that every day I create forty fishes like unto this.'[5]

Borges cites the idea of Bahamut as part of a layered cosmology as an illustration of the cosmological proof of the existence of God, which infers a first cause from the impossiblity of infinite prior causes.[1] He also draws parallels between Bahamut and the mythical Japanese fish Jinshin-Uwo.[6]

interesting... very interesting.... i really need to have a look for this kind of information for it is simply facinating


oh and bbal YOUR WRONG!!!

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.

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.

interesting... very interesting.... i really need to have a look for this kind of information for it is simply facinating


oh and bbal YOUR WRONG!!!

well you got me there... but still, i wont stop believeing in the Dragons EVER and no matter what people say to me and no matter what they might use as an excuse, i wont stop Ever, my belief is real i just need to fine the proof, and believe me when i do i am going to spam it every where and in front of all of you non-believers faces and you know what i'll do then LAUGH! and say "Now i have proof that you were wrong HAHAHAHAHA"

well you got me there... but still, i wont stop believeing in the Dragons EVER and no matter what people say to me and no matter what they might use as an excuse, i wont stop Ever, my belief is real i just need to fine the proof, and believe me when i do i am going to spam it every where and in front of all of you non-believers faces and you know what i'll do then LAUGH! and say "Now i have proof that you were wrong HAHAHAHAHA"

Nothing of the sort Grem. The whole reason there is a 'serpent in the Garden of Eden in the Hebrew story is becasue it is a retelling of the "serpent Enki in the Adapa story, also taking place in Eden. That's proof that these people regarded Enki as a literal reptilian being, that could if it wished, transform into a humanoid god. There is really no other explanation. And the hymns says they are serpent dragons, it does not say they are like serpent dragons, as they sometimes do with terms like bulls.

No serious scholar states that the Cadeuces on the door is Ningishzida. On the vase Ningi and Dumuzi are holding the gates of heaven, symbolized by a cadeuces to represent eternal life in heaven. And this exact scene occurs in the Adapa myth.

The more you speak on the subject, the more you reveal how very little you actually know about it.

You claimed they were never decribed as dragons, and then I showed you the Hymn to Ea, where he is carefully described in several verses as a clawed, sharp toothed , serpent headed , scaly monster. And no near eastern scholar doubts that Enki and Ea ar the same entity. And many believe he bcomes Yaw of the Cannanites and ultimately Yahweh.

I suggest you read Bible Origins again. He quotes dozens of scholars that essentially agree that these gods were believed to have a serpent/dragon form. You are the one who obviously doesn't understand any of this. The ancient hymns confirm what I am saying. Nothing supports your views.

Yes, the Sumerian Gods are often depicted in their human form, but often with a Mushushu next to them to indicate they are also dragons.

How about, "large unidentified. apparently reptile like cryptids" that mankind has believed in since the earliest times they recorded their thoughts.

Would that be the dragons straight out of Dungeons and Dragons?

But sure, if you find rock-hard evidence(not silly and grainy videos showing absolutely nothing) then you're free to show it to us. be warned though, DC haven't managed to convince me, and he's put up quite a deal of arguments.
And hsi dragons do not come from the Draconomicon.

So, would an even more giant monitor than the Komodo... Or a gigantic prehistoric crocodile, still living in the depths of... someplace, be a dragon then?

Why do people quote in different posts on here? Is it that difficult to do it all in one post? Jesus guys.

And, to be honest, why do we group western and easter dragons as all being "dragons"? What similarities do they have, at all?

no, i dont think you understand. Although i dont rate the site much, perhaps you should goto bibleorigins again and check.
It is not proof, because you have oversimplified something more complex. the serpent in eden is more than just a literal trans of enki.
enki was not depicted as anything but a humanoid god, in the stories he is humanoid including the adapa story. He is only called Great Serpent in hymns and prayers, and it is not meant literally. He is certainly part of an older cthonic tradition which was in some way reptilian, in his temple they found lots of clay snakes coiled up under the altar.

The only thing to suggest he is a mushushu looking beastie.....is a much later Assyrian Hymn which describes a demonic aspect (or manifestation) of Ea, who is a later evolution of Enki. It actually even says it in the hymn....so it is not his true form, only an aspect.


how do you know when you havent even read the most popular and respected academic work on the subject...i posted a bibliography, or list of articles and works ages ago.

you cant rely on bibleorigins.com and free online texts (which are usually crap, or outdated, or both)


i beg to differ with you sir.



see above answers.



obviously, obviously, obviously...
incorrect, you dont understand this.

in summery then.....

dont

Really, there's only one somewhat compelling story. In July of 2002, 500 people reported seeing a horned, black dragon in Lake Tianchie which is in Northeast China. The rest of the stories in the article don't have nearly as many witnesses, or sound like people just assumed that some livestock were killed by a dragon for whatever reason.

You do not know what I have read. I have read nearly everything that is readily available and it does not contradict what I am saying. A dozen reliable sources acknowledge the connection between Enki and the other high gods of Sumeria with "great serpent dragons of heaven".

I am not taking anything the owner of Bible Origins says, but he has compiled statements from MANY real archaeologists and anthropologists. Anyone who visits the site will see that, and all of the quoted experts support what I am saying, that one aspect/form of Enki was "a great serepent dragon". This is also why the mushushu is constantly shown as a guardian by the side of Marduk. Because he claimed we was 'begot' by Enki, who everyone knew was a great serpent-dragon from heaven'.

Aside from you insults, you have not provided a single sentence to dispute what I am saying, (and which is backed be a dozen distinguished experts in the field. I am NOT saying they believe these are real live dragons, but they do say Enki, Ningi and others were dragon deities, and as 'gods' it is a simple matter for ancients to believe they can change form. You should know this much, at least.

And you have said nothing at all here to disproved this. You simply rant that "I do not understand".

You are the one that doesn't understand. If Enki or Ningishzida was not identified as a walking , talking, wise serpent-dragon, we never would have had the Hebrew Eden story. It is that simple, an no amount of your phoney academic smokescreen can change that fact.

In a social environment orcas share their prey. Lone males do not, such as at the famous seal hunting grounds in Mexico where they are often filmed. While they sometimes 'toss' seal pups, they are eventually swallowed whole, or as anyone viewing the actual footage can see, most of the seal pups are swallowed whole immediately after they are captured. This is indisputable. It must be common such common knowledge to real marine biologists they don't even bother to say if seals and other prey found in the stomachs of orcas bodies are intact because it is a no brainer. The same can be seen amond all the toothed whales, they swallow their prey whole. Orcas are unique in that they take on larger animals that they cannot swallow whole so must dismember them, but unless sharing as a social activity, they simply swallow smaller prey whole like ANY other toothed whale.

I find it incredible that you have a problem understanding this.

There was nothing invalid with my observation that orcas have attacked humans. In the discussion the evidence was provided: orcas attempting to knock men in the water, ah but maybe they just wanted to give them 'rides", and let them rub their bellies like at Sea World. You've got to be kidding.

Whether you like it or not, "intellient dragons" is really the best explanation for many large cryptids if we concede the sighting are of a real animal.

well you got me there... but still, i wont stop believeing in the Dragons EVER and no matter what people say to me and no matter what they might use as an excuse, i wont stop Ever, my belief is real i just need to fine the proof, and believe me when i do i am going to spam it every where and in front of all of you non-believers faces and you know what i'll do then LAUGH! and say "Now i have proof that you were wrong HAHAHAHAHA"