Oh no, I'm reading a pre-release of a new book that conclusively proves dragons exist, even today. They whispered in the ears of Neanderthal man, and taught him how to make fire. It all makes perfect, logical sense.



::incorrigible1 awakens from deep sleep:: "huh, what was I just dreaming?"

Exactly, and since true dragons are just in fantatsy books. No chance there either.

Real scientists have proposed a number of ways a dragon could realistically spew fire. One was proposed in the animal planet documentary. There are many others. I believe my proposal is better than most. You already know animals can produce flammable gases. I am surprised you think the final step is so impossible.

No, they destroyed the Neanderthals becasue they were an imperfect species that could not be taught to produce tasty domestic animals and beer for their dragon overlords like the Cro-magnon/modern men.

No, dragons are described as real animals in official history and natural hisotry books up until the 1700's . Our best record of Anglo Saxon history, the Anglo Saxon Chronicles, casually mention a king who was swallowed by a dragon as if it were an every day occurance.

The biggest problem with dragon sceptics is that most of them have only the vaguest knowledge of ancient and medieval history, so they have no idea of how common dragon sightings really were.

This is why my study will gain greater acceptance among a more intelligent and educated readership who actually know their ancient and medieval history.

have i missed something, did dc just imply that nessie is a pterosaur?
either way bang goes his theory again!

if pterosaurs would have been considered as dragons from sightings before pterosaurs were identified and named through fossils, then (as he suggests) they are also intelligent creatures, like nessie (who apparently has rib-gliding aparatus), and those mushushu looking immortal dragons who were considered gods, and taught mankind.

Doesnt his theory state that all dragon myths/sightings/stories have a single root creature? Here we have 3 types. This single genetically modified creature responsible for universal belief in dragons cannot look like all 3. And pterosaurs cannot be the origin of the other 2.....

even if there were 3 real creatures that sparked off the dragon myths the theory still goes pop.

The only way out is for you DC to claim that these are not sightings of pterosaurs at all, but sightings of your elusive ex-gods, who sometimes live in lakes.
Then you've just got the differences in the physical descriptions of all of these to 'doctor' and your'e back in business....oh and reports of shot-down pterosaurs in USA to discredit....and then theres mothman and thunderbird 'eyewitness' accounts to deny and call ignorant.


just one or two questions....

regarding the nice anecdotes provided by Evangium, why cant these be literally relied on ??? why are they less reliable than ancient greek and roman vulgar 'romances', or less reliable than the Hymn dedicated to an aspect of Ea? Or ancient chinese accounts of civil servants getting joy rides from these beasties??
Why is a C1st AD Roman sculptor's depiction more reliable than a C4th BC greek fisherman, or vase painter?

which is the most 'reliable' of all? you have claimed that each 'encountered' your dragons, why do descriptions vary so wildly?

why, if they are credited with teaching chinese civilisation, did they not appear till the C2nd BC, or come to be represented 'accurately' till then (re: your bixie proposal) Surely it should be the other way around? (they come early and depictions get gradually less accurate)

Unless of course it is the 'lung' that is the real one, that taught civilisation....since it has been depicted since 3500 or so BC....but we know that that 'creature' was a clan/tribal totem that evolved, acquiring body parts from the totems of assimilated clans etc....besides which the early lung wasnt even a real dragon eh? just a glorified snake totem, with horns...right??? (despite the fact that it is called lung which is the chinese word approximated to 'dragon'.)

why wasnt the bixie called a lung? what does bixie mean?

when chinese people talk amongst themselves in reverence of these divine creatures that taught them civilisation, gave them fun rides etc...(and require legislation to prevent their defamation by insensitive ignorant anglo-saxons) do they use the word lung or bixie? or 'dragon' even....?

ill stop now.

but just to let you know, i could have gone on for ages. (as the bishop said to the actress)

This is why my study will gain greater acceptance among a more intelligent and educated readership who actually know their ancient and medieval history.

Kudos for being wise enough to not mention biology and natural sciences. Those folk are as amused at you as I am.

I happen to think this will make sense to a lot of them, especially if they have religious beliefs, for the work does give sicentific explanations for much in the Biblical accounts.

I happen to think this will make sense to a lot of them, especially if they have religious beliefs, for the work does give sicentific explanations for much in the Biblical accounts.

I happen to think this will make sense to a lot of them, especially if they have religious beliefs, for the work does give sicentific explanations for much in the Biblical accounts.

That really depends. (science is always either bashing the Bible or using it as a reference to help prove their theories.) I mean, I've noticed that the Bible doesn't say a lot of what you've said it mentioned. Trust me, I should know.

I'm always annoyed when people mention it would be impossible to breath fire. (Been lurking, by the way.)

We know of creatures who squirt huge clouds of ink, produce a frequency of "sonar", have poison seeping from their skin, shoot toxic explosions out of their rear ends, stun prey using severe electric shock, and so many more! So what is so impossible about breathing fire?

Good point but all living things have natural electricity we all have it, our bodies generate it, but we can't use it, (except for electric eels). Fire isn't natural to the body, plus i've already explained that fire and flesh don't mix, if your going to generate fire it's going burn the skin and organs through the inside out, skales won't protect against fire at all skales arn't meant for protection at all. Skales are meant to keep the body warm by keeping in heat (just recapping what I said earlier). It would be suicide to breathe fire if you could, fire is too wild and would basically just go out of control and ingulf you in flames, so it wouldn't be practical anyway if it was possible.

No, there are a number of theories in which the flame does not ignite until well outside of the dragon's body. Understand that the term "fire breathing" is incorrect. Flame is spewed out, not breathed in.

No, there are a number of theories in which the flame does not ignite until well outside of the dragon's body. Understand that the term "fire breathing" is incorrect. Flame is spewed out, not breathed in.

Unless the fire was ignited at least several feet from the body, the dragon's face would melt. Any theories on how a dragon is able to breathe fire that conform to modern science and could be testable?

I seriously doubt it will. Sorry.

No sound scientific or historical theory should only be believable if one has faith. It should be applicable to all peoples and testable within the realms of reality. It would be ridiculous if that were to occur, there would be no sense at all in scientific practice. "Yeah, you can't see it happening, but it is. You just have to believe in God, God's making it happen."

There are three "theories" that I've heard concerning fire-breathing. The first is the Discovery Channel one, hydrogen sacs, but such light gas would be extremely hard to control if it were to be forced out. Also, the gas is supposedly produced by "special bacteria", a feat that is not delved into in any detail. So we'd have to have a competely different symbiotic organism that would have hydrogen as waste and use as fuel only metabolic products of the dragon itself. The second is methane gas, but I'd have a hard time believing that would come out of the oral orifice, given that it is a metabolic waste product. And as mentioned in the college student examples (applicable to the hydrogen speculation as well) there would need to be something to set the gas aflame far from the mouth, far enough for it not to backfire into the dragon and cuse injury. The final is from Reign of Fire, whereas two liquids that react in flames when mixed are spewed from separate glands in the mouth and meet midair a distance from the dragon's mouth. I don't remember if the liquids were specified, but they would also need to be produced by the dragon somehow, and since they would most likely be toxic, the dragon would have to be extremely careful not to accidentally ingest any of it, no matter how protected the containing ducts are.

Yes, the "reign of fire" technique would eliminate the danger of burning the dragon, but the combustibles need not be toxic. For example, there are numberous accounts of dragons imbiding in alcoholic beverages, and even Yahweh demands these along with his fatted calves and first born children.

There is a fourth, and most plausible method that will be discussed in my book as well.

Surely. The dragon exhales a deep breath, from deep within its lungs, utilizing diaphragm breath control, and then a freaking miracle occurs. Simple.

I have stated that they cannot be pterosaurs, but are obviously dragons. If they were pterosaurs they would have been tracked down.

As for Chines dragon shapes, there are some very ancient 'short bodied dragons' long before the Han dynasty. And surely you have read that the Chinese themselves state the earliest dragons did have wings so your theory goes out the window.

I believe Bixie is a term used by art historians, NOT the ancient Chinese. They would have cnsidered the short bodied dragons as Lung as well. The elongated lung may simply be a way to fill more space, to make the dragon look more pleasing to the oriental eye.

I am not sure what the dragon looked like in the offensive anglo saxon commercial, though i doubt it was a classic lung.. It probably looked more like a western/chinese short bodied dragon.
.rus

"During the Han Dynasty (206 B.C. -220 A.D.), the images of both animals were for ornamentation purposes. Sculptures of them were placed in front of tombs to suggest the dignity and power and authority the deceased enjoyed in their lifetime. As symbols of bravery and immunity to evil, the two animals are meant for those aspiring to ascend to heaven to ride on. Images of tianlu and Bixie were inscribed, embroidered or carved on fabrics, army banners, bands and hooks, or the handles of seals and bells in ancient times."

This all goes back to what defines a Dragon, Gremlin.

Dragons speaking? This thread is slowly loosing all hope. Sorry, slowly? Rapidly.

Reptiles make little noise at all, other than hissing. Some reptiles even lack ears. All of the "dragon" sightings that I've read, the animal is described as giant snake-like thing or a serpent... So it's surely logical to assume such a beast lacks ears? Sound clearly isn't all that important to reptiles and vocalizing is minimal at best. Are there actually any examples of reptiles which use sound to "communicate" between one another at all?? Other than as a warning??

Speaking, as we do, since DC used us as an example - would require mouth parts like ours. Lips... and a reptiles tongue would be useless for speech. I could be wrong and overlooking something vital here, but don't only mammals have lips?

Of course, if you mean "speaking" as in communicating in a way we can understand through... psychic or something, then I think you're confusing real life with Pokemon.

Unless the fire was ignited at least several feet from the body, the dragon's face would melt. Any theories on how a dragon is able to breathe fire that conform to modern science and could be testable?

Among the strange features of dragon-like animals, the elongated neck is prominent, especially
in archaic Egypt, a good-example being on the votive palette of King Narmer (C., p. 237, fig. 168),
on which are carved the figures of two men holding by a rope a pair of feline animals with much-
elongated necks intertwined round the circular depression which held the eye-paint; this group,
but with one man only between the animals, was adopted as the nome-sign of Cusm in Upper Egypt,
and survived in that function till the end of Ancient Egypt (see Alan Gardiner's ' Grammar,' p. 439,
nos. 38 and 39; cp. also the ivory fragment from Hierakonpolis, C., fig. 98) ; it seems to have
originated, as far as present evidence shows, in Egypt, and to have been the offspring of =sthetic
imagination. The pair of feline animals with snake-like heads is also found on the other side of the
palette previously mentioned, on which was carved the figure of a griffin (C., p. 224, fig. 155) ; on
another the long-necked antelopes standing antithetically beside a palm-tree (C., figs. 162 and 164)
have been identified as specimens of the gerenuk, a gazelle of Somaliland (Brit. Mus., N.H., ' Guide
to the Great Game Animals,' p. 39) ; these creatures, and more especially the giraffe, which also
figures on the palette, may have inspired the Egyptian artist with the idea of neck-elongation as an
expression of strange, uncanny animal-life. The snake-necked felines appear, like the griffin, on
the magic wands of the Twelfth Dynasty and in the hunting scenes of the contemporary tombs of
Beni Hassan; it seems evident that the painters of these scenes worked from traditional models,
with little knowledge of the actual fauna of the desert among which they included these monsters,
while their renderings of real beasts, often vivacious, may have been based on observations of actual
specimens in captivity. The elongated neck, though known in Proto-Elamite art (D., pl. 30, nos. 5
and 8), figures but little in Mesopotamian designs ; a well-known example in the Louvre consists of
two animals, whose bodies appear from the hoofs to be those of bulls, standing opposite each other
with giraffe-like necks doubly intertwined, while their long tails cross once, the whole forming a
notable continuous pattern; the necks end in dragon-heads (M., vol. ii, p. 631, fig. 435). It is to
be inferred from the catalogue (D., pl. 64, no. 9), that its exact origin is not known, as it is an
' acquisition,' but it is classed as ' archaic,' that is, of the third millennium B.c., undoubtedly later
than the Egyptian example. The pattern of pairs of elongated animal-necks intercrossed is found
also in archaic Assyria, and is illustrated by a cylinder in fig. 70 of Contenau's ' Tablettes de Kerkouk,'
where it is applied, oddly, to both animals of the conventional group of a lion attacking a wild goat,
the faces' of which accordingly confront each other most amicably. In two cylinders in the Louvre
collection (D., pl. 68, no. 13, and pl. 70, no. 7), the general effect is that of the Cusm nome-sign,
but the elements are different, for here the central figure is that of a Gilgamesh-hero holding a
snake-necked lion from each upraised arm, but his legs resolve themselves into the hindquarters
of a pair of bulls, the tails of which, in their turn, form the lions' necks, a truly monstrous
combination.
On all the earliest cylinders animal figures predominate, principally bulls, lions and mountaingoats;
being treated as decorative elements, they are, of course, liable to a good deal of distortion;
in many the bodies are twisted, or intertwined with others, usually simply but occasionally in a
complicated pattern, after that of the guilloche so common in Syro,Hittite cylinders. This feature
is specially noticeable in the specimens from Shurrupak which are largely illustrated by Otto Weber
in ' Altorientalische Siegelbilder ' (see also M., vol. ii, pp. 616-17) : the simple elongated neck is rare
and seems to have been originally a native Egyptian feature. With the arrival of Semitic dominance,
Mesopotamian art lost its freshness and the animal style ceased, to be replaced by the conventional
religious pattern of the Semitic cylinder. The animal style in ancient Egypt seems to be derived from
the Palaeolithic through the Epipalaeolithic, which has left so many traces in North Africa, from
Morocco to Egypt, and, across the Straits, in Spain. In Egypt, with its naturalistic art, it held its
ground, as it did in North Syria, apparently under Egyptian influence through Byblos. We find it
again in Assyrian art, probably under Syro-Hittite inspiration but taking a form of its own, with
Babylonian influences. (For Egyptian dominance in North Syria, see M., vol. i, pp. 133 and 136,
and vol. ii, pp. 653-5; for Syro-Hittite style, Contenau, ' La Glyptique Syro-Hittite,' nos. 81-87;
the griffin in nos. 15 and 22 and the elongated neck in no. 13 afford further evidence of the connections
above mentioned.) Egyptian influence in Assyria was probably exercised also more directly ; striking
examples of it are the symbol of the national god, imitating the Egyptian winged sun-disk and the
famous Nineveh ivories in the British Museum (' Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities,'
~ 1 sx.l i and xlii).

So sightings of pterosaurs were misidentified? they look like pterosaurs?

indeed there are a number of dragon forms in china, the long/lung is the earliest, and the bixie is not considered a dragon at all.
Bixie is a chinese term which means "averter of evil" and they used to guard tombs and the spirit roads that lead to tombs.

never called a lung or dragon by those that can identify it.

it is described as a winged lionid chimera. and is usually found together with Tianlu

Tianlu (heavenly emolument) has the one horn
bixie (averter of evil) has 2.



http://www.cultural-china.com/chinaWH/html...25Arts1419.html

also see...
Jessica Rawson; The Eternal Palaces of the Western Han: A New View of the Universe; Artibus Asiae, Vol. 59, No. 1/2 (1999), pp. 5-58

Some more from G. D. Hornblower's Early Dragon Forms.

It does seem that elongated necks (and possibly bodies) were merely an artistic function, rather than accurate depictions.
So perhaps this is how the dragon got its giraffe like neck...

I've also left in the depiction of Gilgamesh. Perhaps the inclusion of bulls and lions is the artist's way of describing the hero as a truly great king, rather than concocting a more suitable dragon slaying hybrid...

Sorry, but you are quite wrong. Perhaps you are watching too much Pokeman and not enough Animal Planet. I have always maintained that dragons would be archosaurs, which includes some very 'reptile-like' creatures like crocodiles, but also BIRDS.

So yes, you 'overlooked' and 'missed' a very great deal. Birds do not have lips, and mouths like humans? No. They have mouths like archosaurs, yet some can speak human words. They do not seem to understand everything they say, but their were are often pronounced very accurately. So if a bird can speak, why couldn't one of their more intelligent archosaur cousins? Many reptiles, and ALL archosaurs have ears. My own alligator has incredibly sensitive hearing, and they also "sing" during mating season and some scientists think they may have a subsonic 'language'.

Many ancient accounts state dragons can speak, and we know their archosaurian relatives can. This thread is not 'losing all hope', it is just that some of its participants know too little about real animals, so that their jabs to ridicule it reveal their own incredible lack of knowledge.

No it doesn't. There are plenty of long necked archosaurian predators with long necks both in Dinosauria and Aves. Dragons are almost universally recognized a carnivorous beasts and a long neck is an important prey catching adaptation.

Regarding the fire breathing debate, in order to consider it as a possibility my questions would be:

1. Are there any other animals in nature that possess the ability to spew flames ?

2. What purpose would it serve, what would it be used for ?

I was going to leave this as a surprise in the book,

How would they light their fire? Probably a small torch concealed in a forepaw,

Yes, but now you're implying misidentifified dinosaur/dinosaur bones (which is contrary to your argument) , and apart from some birds and the giraffe, horse, cow, camel and llama, I can't for the life of me think of any other examples in the animal knigdom, let alone carnivores..

The book we'd never get to read, because you won't give away your identity?

I wonder if you have bibliographies in your books.

if I still lived in Europe I\'d probably use my real name, but here in the Bible Belt..... probably not.

Of course there will be bibliographies, and copious footnotes to every chapter.

Evangium? Where are you getting your sources? from online excerpts or from the books themselves? I ask because many of the things you have posted are from books i own and have read and its fascinating to see them quoted here.

This seems like nonsense cooked up by modern art historians. What you call a "Bixie" IS the dragon depicted on Imperial seals in the Han dynasty and earlier, when live dragons were reportd with great regularity. Therefore it was believed to be the Celestial Lung, complete with the correct number of identifying toes. And all over the world DRAGONS were believed to be guardians and thier effigies placed in tombs. DRAGONS, Gremlin, NOT "bixies". There is the widewpread belief they consume the souls/spirits of the wicked, so it was probably hoped the effigy of a dragon would frighten evil spirits. This continues even into Christianity.

Consider that what is called a "bixie" merely means the dragon statuette popularly employed to guard tombs, and not a new name for a different dragon. After all, the Chinese clearly state in their dragon lore that the oldest lung have wings, exactly like the realistic dragon sculptures termed Bixies. .

Ok i havent read all of the replies but just a couple of things.

Y Ddraig Goch was never captured as far as i am aware. He was a symbol of the Welsh Victory over the Saxons. Where you get the idea that Ddraig Goch was a parody DC is beyond me. Ddraig Goch (the Welsh dragon) is one of the most reverred in the UK.

May i also point out that guile and trickery have been used to defeat dragons in even the oldest of myths. Take the myth of Lludd and Llufelys http://www.dragonstouch.co.uk/ItoP.html#LluddLlufelys#

They tricked the dragon and this legend is far older than the coming of Christianity and even our ability to write.

Evangium? Where are you getting your sources? from online excerpts or from the books themselves? I ask because many of the things you have posted are from books i own and have read and its fascinating to see them quoted here.

1. Yes, many animals as well as people could theoretically 'spew flames' if their methane gasses were to ignite. And scalding hot liquid is spewed from the Bombardier Beetle. Humans are able to spew flames as a popular trick by putting flammable liquid in their mouths and spewing it out with something to ignite it.

2. I was going to leave this as a surprise in the book, but it is almost ready for production so I will say it now. Yes, flame spewing could be a defense mechanism, but since dragons are already top order predators, the purpose of breathing fire was simply a dragon trick to make them seem even more godlike to their human worshippers.

There is nothing secret or impossible at all about this. Dragons requested liqour. Even Yahweh whose fire spewing abilities are recorded in the Bible, specifically asks for liquor among all the fatted calves, lambs and children.

Spewing fire is a trick used by dragons exactly as it is used by humans in carnival and nightclub acts. But a dragon could really make an impressive and god-worthy show of it. How would they light their fire? Probably a small torch concealed in a forepaw, or perhaps flint and meteorite iron (until humans made iron strikers). There is nothing amazing or impossible for a sentient creature like a human or dragon to spew flammable liquid out of their mouths.

According to this book, the flash point of 100 proof alchol is 75 degrees F -- a number I tend to agree with. This means that initial "ignition" happens at a VERY low temp -- http://books.google.com/books?id=jGFZ6ZqGk...LDkemxM#PPA7,M1

Further the "energy content" of such a flame is very small, in fact here a demonstation that saturates a British 5 pound note and it is unburned http://www.chemsoc.org/networks/LearnNet/v.../fivepounds.pdf.

Anyone who has uses an old fashioned camp stove knows that even pure alcohol, under pressure, is a pretty pathetic heat source, there is no way that you'd get a flambe hot enough to damage teflon. Link

Alcohol vapours form explosive mixtures with air when the concentration of alcohol vapour is greater than 4.3 per cent, but less than 19.0 per cent by volume. The flash point of 190 proof alcohol is 63 deg. F. (17.2degC); bourbon or 90 proof alcohol is 78 deg. F. (25.6degC) A liquid alcohol at above these temperatures is highly flammable. Link

The picture of the creature you posted, and constantly refer to is the bixie.

its what the chinese called it,

they didnt call it 'lung' (dragon)

it is a feline chimera with wings.

not a dragon.

While the han imperial lung may have been shortened to fit on the imperial seal, and while it stylistically may look like a bixie, it is not.

Evangium? Where are you getting your sources? from online excerpts or from the books themselves? I ask because many of the things you have posted are from books i own and have read and its fascinating to see them quoted here.

Except that alcohol, such as brandy, has a very low flash point and burns at a low temperature.
So there's no risk of melting metal or causing full thickness, total body burns...
Thus the fire spewing would be somewhat pointless as a weapon...
So moot point about the dragon being able to fricasee an armoured warrior.

Sure Grem, that really sounds like a cop out answer. It is the same dragon. So tell me which lung do the chinese refer to when they say the oldest ones have wings. The imperial Han lung you call a bixie has prominent wings and a short, western dragon body.

Online, through my university library's database portal (hence why I have to reference them from .pdf, since posting a web link would redirect to a request to log in ). For those who have access, the articles I've been using can be found on the JSTOR database.
Despite being online, most of them are from the journals themselves. I am able to move from the current article to the previous and next articles, so technically have access to the full journal.

Wonders of the ancients aside, the wonders of the information age are every bit as impressive

Where did you quote those from? I wanted to see the demonstration, but the link is cropped.

People should always post the original web url they got it from!

I never said it had to be used as a weapon. No human could harm a dragon anyway, just as scientists have pointed out about large theropod dinos vs. primitive humans. It was just a 'magic trick' to shock and awe their human worshippers.

But the fire display is very impressive, and no doubt humans believed they could be fricaseed by their fiery breath, so they kept the sacrificial lambs, calves and virgins coming.