The greeks did believe fossils were the bones of the monsters of their myths, and no longer believed creatures like cyclops were still living, BUT they believed dragons still lived in their own times, and ancient reports speak of them sinking ships, occasionally seen in the air, etc. Also various Drakons and sea drakons (Ketos) were technically 'demigods' in their own right, being the offspring of gods. Even Zeus was probably an incarnation of the Mesopotamian sky dragon, Enlil, and according to legend, would sometimes transform into a Drakon to have sex with human women. It was believed that the most famous man in the ancient world, Alexander the Great, was sired by Zeus in his Drakon form. By this time we see both winged Drakons and some like traditional serpents with beards, and sometimes crests, and the sea dragons which often have wings and look very much like the modern conception of a dragon.

But long necked, winged reptiles that we would call dragons were some of mankinds oldest gods from Sumeria. And many of the oldest Chinese dragons also have wings and look like the Sumerian dragons, suggesting in these earliest times cultures all over the world actually saw these creatures.

What two completely different types of lizard that are as unrelated as two lizards can be? (one is a iguanidae and the other is a varanidae).

Dragons never have existed and there is nothing to suggest they ever did.

You may believe 'dragons never existed' but saying "there is nothing to suggest they ever did" is a very ignorant statement. Virtually every human culture believed they existed, and they are probably the same large, usually aquatic cryptids still reported today all over the world. Most of the large cryptid sightings are from areas rich in dragon legends. These earlier peoples obviously saw the same creatures, and to them, they were 'dragons', or whatever term was used in that region for large, intelligent reptilian creatures, that were a universal human belief.

REAL scientists believe in these creatures, some have even been assigned scientific names. Their echo location sounding have been recorded and photographs taken. Only now they are no longer called 'dragons', but they are our ancestor's dragons.

Can you provide ANY info on who these "scientists" are that believe in dragons?? And can you also provide any info on anyone that has recorded any type of echo-location and claimed it as a dragon?? And can you provide links to these photos taken of dragons?? I would really love to see any of these.

You misunderstood my post. What I said is that there are scientists who believe some "lake monsters" and "sea serpents" are real, unknown animals, and in the case of "Champ" a biologist recorded echo location sounding unlike any known animal. I think it is Sweeden or Norway that "protects" its sea serpent like an endangered species. I think it is "Chessie" that has been given a scientific name.

The point is that these same animals would have been called 'dragons' in medieval and ancient times. And maybe they would be called that again, if we ever get a real close look at them.

Or if they actually existed.
Do you believe in fairies btw?

They are not literally considered dragons. Actually, they're not proven to exist at all. They're still cryptids and if they do turn out to be biological entities they will not be called "dragons" like the dragons of myth. They will be included in the appropriate taxa. Do not refer to these creatures for which there is at least some plausible evidence to some mistranslations of mistranslations of old documents. What you said above is gruesomely misleading.

And I know you've said it before, but no, Nessie is not a giant fire-breathing dragon that hides in the lake then goes out to hunt people and make them disappear forever.

None of these are classified, but I believe many are protected by law as a result of devout believers and the fact that no harm could come from something like that whether it exists or not.

It's interesting to see how deep people get into these things.

dragons existed only in fairy tales

You have got to be kidding me! Echo locations and photographs of dragons? Where are the photos at, did these
scientists say exactly that they were dragons? I'm sorry, but, I cant believe that. The echo location recordings
could have been alot of things. But, you are saying that they were clearly dragons.


Regards,
Tom

OK, you were referring to cryptic lake monsters. Thank you for clarifying, as your original post didn't really make that clear.
Now, however, the post where stated "REAL scientists believe in these creatures" is what got me. Basically you are calling any scientist who does not belileve in cryptic lake monsters Fakes?? You see, it is statements like this that crush any shred of credibility that you have. If that is not what you mean, then stop to think about what you are writing and how other people are going to take it before you write it. You can believe anything you want, but I can go back and quote you on dozens of statements like this that kill your credibility in these forums.

Exactly. They make these laws because it helps with tourism, and therefor economy. Plus, not to mention the fact that these places where cryptids are supposed to live are overrun every time there is a "sighting" with idiots toting high power rifles and 12 packs of beer. They have to make these laws to keep people from shooting anything that moves in those areas, which are usually other tourists.

I think you have finally lost it.

How would you know this? Stories just don't cut.


BY the way, when is this supposed book that make us all believe in dragons be coming out? Does it even exist?

Does he mean scientists that don't believe are fake scientists? Or perhaps (and this would be more reasonable) he's pointing out real scientists believe and not just random guy 132 wannabe scientist.

LOL, I think DC 'lost it' long ago... IMO

It just baffles me! No, credible scientist would ever say that they have found dragons with echo location,
and have pictures of them.

I'm pretty sure DC, is reffering to a pseudoscientist or a cryptozoologist.


Regards,
Tom

I believe he's referring to the recording of echolocation in Lake Champlain (was discussed on an episode of MonsterQuest - but not recorded by the show) . They didn't claim it was a lake monster much less a dragon (as far as I know). What made it interesting was that the marine biologist involved said the only known marine animals using echolocation are whales and dolphins (neither of which are in Lake Champlain) - so they were trying to determine what the source could be. They were also going through some analysis that no one was trying to pull a hoax.

Here's a link to the group that took the recordings http://animalvoice.com/lakechamplain.htm

I could believe this if he had not emphasized REAL, indicating that any scientist who does not believe is not real. If he meant what you were saying, he could have said SOME scientist believe. He uses quotes and phrases like this in some of his past postings, basically saying that science somehow backs up his theory that dragons did and still exist, and any science that does not back it up is not legit. He constantly massacres his own credibility with claim like these.
What you are thinking would be more reasonable, but reasonable seems to have dropped out of his vocabulary many years ago. If you read most of his other posts on here, you can see how unreasonable his logic really is.

I'm sorry you didn't comprehend what I was saying, thought others did understand. Maybe English isn't your firszt language. I made no such claim that any scientist who didn't believe in these cryptids isn't a real scientist. I stated there are real scientists that do believe in these creatures as anyone familiar with this subject is aware. It doesn't matter if they call them dragons or not. The point is, our ancestors saw these same creatures and called them dragons, because there was no ridicule attached to that name back then, as the whole world believed they were real.

You still don't get it. Some credible scientists DO believe these cryptids are real, but they don't call them dragons anymore. But if seen 200 years ago or earlier, they would probably be called dragons. Many dragon legends occur in the same places lake monsters are reported today.

See, this is what bothers me. Anyone who does not agree with what you are saying gets childish little insults thrown at them. How old are you again??
The way you worded it can be taken a couple of different ways. If english is your first language, maybe you should actually stop to think about what you are writing before you start typing it out. Most of your claims are so ridiculous, and your crediblity on these forums is so low, that I am not the only one who read what you stated that way. Your usual MO is that of childish insults, misinformation, unsubstantiated claims, and ridiculous ideas that seem to be pulled out of thin air. So, when someone like you says something that can be taken more than one way, you can bet that anyone who has read most of your posts in the past, are going to take it in the worst possible way it can be taken. If you want people to start taking you more seriously, knock off the insults, and write in manner that leaves no question of the idea you are trying to express.

Actually, it is not the subject matter explored that determines who is a scientist, but the method of the exploration. If someone submits non-verifiable data as evedence, it is not science. Were someone to actually prove the existence of a cryptid with verifiable, objective data, that would be science.

It is certainly true, however, that many subjects are esentially taboo, and any scientist who was studying them would loose much standing and credibility in the eyes of the scientific establishment. Many of the subjects here on UM are so far into that zone, that any proof would have to be quite extraordinary to gain any hearing at all. Thus, many scientists don't want to waste time, and money, researching a subject, that even if they made a discovery, would only end their careers...

Click to view attachment

What a hypocrite. You claim I am insulting people, when you fill your posts with insults against me. I haven't said anything here that is 'ridiculous'. If you believe I did, it is probably due to your own ignorance concerning these matters, just as your inability to understand what I am saying.

The people who claim I have 'provided misinformation' or 'could not substantiate my claims' are simple liars, too stupid to understand what I am talking about, or and usually have some religious bias against things they simply do not want to hear.

Correct. But the Indian legends describing this creature gave it reptilian/dragon-like characteristics right down to giving it animal sacrifices so it would not attack them. This sentient behavior is a characteristic of Old World 'dragon' reports as well.

Obviously, this is a subject that is way over your head or you would 'get it' like some of the other people here.

be sure to put that ‘theory’ of yours about dragons attacking German U-Boats in the book, or is it a comic book?, that will at least give all the readers a good laugh, except for the few who might take you seriously... IMO

I didn't make it up. The Captain himself said the ship was attacked by a giant reptile.

It would appear that the Chinese started the myth about dragons. Apparently they would find dinosaur bones, and started put two and two together.

No, in fact you can argue that even further and say that species don't evolve at all, but evolution occurs on a much grander scale. And you have a point- those that did not evolve in response to an ever-changing environment would perish. Adapt and survive- that's all evolution is.





Evolution- a way of life, not a buzzword.

Virtually every human culture has dragon legends. The Chinese records state there were civil servants who fed visiting dragons. According to their histories, they were real creatures. But then, they were believd to be real creatures everywhere, and were some of mankinds earliest god's as well.

Yes, these people also used believe in many things that don't exist. Some still do.

The weather here is really excellent today.

Watch out for storm dragons though! They can make good weather turn bad fast.

Sorry if I missed the answer to this question somewhere DC. I hate it when someone asks a question that's already been answered, but I'm curious.
What are dragons called now?
Where can I find the echo location sounds and photographs of dragons?
and What are the scientific names that have been assigned to these dragons by scientists?
Thanks! in advance of course.

Lochness monster, "Nessie!" Ogopogo, (Lake Okanagan!) Manipogo, (Lake Manitoba!) Champ, (Lake Champlain!) etc.

To the OP:

This is funny because I had the same EXACT theory as you lol. Actually a long time ago I posted it here in this same forum, under a dif name of course.

Yes I believe that some dinos may have lingered on until they were hunted down and killed by humans later. The problem with this theory is that there is no evidence that dinosaurs lived on past the fossil record. That is unless you want to include tales of myths and legends, and to most people that is not enough. But the theory is wonderful and I support it in full.

And to DC:

Why must you always attack people? I remember back when I went by a dif name you were saying the same stuff then too and still attacking anyone who mentioned dragons. The problems with your arguments are: what you are trying to prove is a belief, just as the OP has a belief, none of which have any physical evidence to back them up. Everyone has beliefs and opinions that differ and it is perfectly fine to question other people's theories in a discussion, but please try not to blatantly insult people. Lets all just get along and try to play nice.

DC, no offence intended, but if you're going to use "sea tales" as a reference to promote your dragon claims then I suggest (as you have to others) that you do some research

I'm not sure where/when the story originates. It's been years since I read the book, but I believe I first read the account in Bernard Heuvelmans's 1968 book In the Wake of the Great Sea-Serpents (the same account has been reprinted verbatim in several books since then and is also repeated in numerous web sites).

To recap the story, on July 30, 1915 the German submarine U-28 torpedoed and sank a British freighter by the name of Iberian. Several moments after the Iberian sank there was a huge underwater explosion that shot wreckage and a gigantic writhing sea creature 60 to 100 into the air. It was described as a 60 ft crocodile with webbed feet and a long tail.

The story is most likely a myth for the following reasons:

1. There are no official logs that contain the alleged entry where the captain of the U-28 described this event.

2. There are no records of a British freighter named Iberian that was sunk by torpedo during WWI.

Interestingly, there was a steamer named the S.S. Iberian that struck a reef and sank in the waters where the bogus U-28 story takes place. However, this happened in 1885, 30 years prior. It's easy to see how the hoaxer could have picked the name of a real ship to make his/her story a touch more believable.

This is just another tall tail of the-one-that-got-away variety.

"Champ"'s apparent echo location has been recorded, and biologists claim it is UNLIKE any other known animal. Photographs of Champ suggest a long necked, 'dragon-like' creature, and indian legends state it preyed on men but could be appeased by sacrifices much as we here in dragon lore around the world.

It is actually a 'sea serpent' that has been assigned a scientific name, though it may be a creature our ancestors referred to as a 'dragom'.

This isn't even the account I was referring to. But it is well known, and posted here before. In this case the creature attacked the submarine, preventing it from submerging so it was later captured. (the submarine).

As others have stated here, I only 'attack' people who attack me first. It can be seen right in this thread.

Sorry, my mistake.

If it has to do with the Coreopsis/UB-85 incident then I have to say that this too is a fabrication. The account of what really happened that day can be found in the British Naval Department's official records. The sub was damaged by gunfire, not by an attack from a sea monster.

If this still isn't the one, then please tell me what story you are referring to.

These types of incidents are sightings because of the lack of hard proof. It would take extraordinary evidence for a scientific or military expert to risk their career on an extraordinary claim, such as the existence of a prehistoric or supernatural reptile. Thus, without objectively verifiable, and repeatable evidence, such experts will assume the next most logical conclusion.

Nonetheless, eyewitness testimony , such as that captain, does show up. Fabrication is one explanation. Maybe they saw something that they couldn't explain any other way, which could either be something extraordinary, or a mistaken conclusion.

This is the first post you made on this thread, and the person you quoted had said nothing about you. There was no attack until you came in and started calling him stupid and ignorant and telling him to leave the forum. It looks to me like you were the first to attack.

While I agree with what you said, there is no proof that any of the two accounts I mentioned actually occurred.

In the first instance, there are no logs where the captain of the U-28 claimed to have reported the gigantic crocodile-looking creature, nor are there any records of a ship by the name Iberian being torpedoed.

In the second incident, the UB-85 was engaged by the Coreopsis and was badly damaged by gun fire. No one on that ship reported seeing the crew of the sub firing their sidearms at an enormous sea serpent that had supposedly attached itself to the sub's forward gun.

There may have been sightings that were misidentified as being sea cryptids, but these two phoney accounts don't even qualify as genuine sightings.

Point and case. Thank you for proving my point for me.

Yes, this is my point exactly. If you go back and check all his postings, you would see that in every little "battle" on here, he is the first to sling the insults. Any time someone does not agree with his rididulous theories and unsubstantiated claims, he calls them names.
He is childish and immature. Instead of defending most of his claims, he just usually says something along the lines of "your just too stupid to see the truth", and somehow he thinks that makes his claims more substantial. Anytime he is asked for direct proof of something, he changes the subject with insults and childish games, instead of answering the challenge. He simply doesn't know how to debate like an adult. He would rather sling insults even try to listen to someone elses reasoning.
Also notice how there is no age listed on his account. And I have asked him his age several times. Instead of actually telling me, he always comes back with a childish insult of how I am stupid, because I do not believe him. He is probably some 13 year old kid sitting at home, wishing that dragons were real, surrounded by his D&D books.

Hey, I wasn't the one who said it. x) There are lots of little proofs you can offer for this sort of thing. There are lots of holes he has yet to fill when we ask for sources. Usually he just says, "You don't understand, you're too stupid. you have too little knowledge" and never bothers giving a proper response.

The age isn't really an issue; I was hesitant to put mine up here too because people do tend to judge. But if someone was dogging me for sources on claims I'd made, I'd back myself up. I'd scan the textbook cover that had my information, find an equal source online, take a picture of my student card. And yet we have no evidence or name to go off of for this book.

Not saying I have an opinion either way, but if it does come out I don't see why he'd get responses any different from those on this thread from anyone over the age of 15.

I wasn't claiming that age was the issue. Just making an observation. A 40 year old can be just as immature as a 14 year old, but for some reason, just the way he comes off, he just doesn't seem to have been in this world long. Combine his lack of reasoning, what seems to be a lack of real world experience, and immaturity, it just adds up to a very young kid with a dream of myths being real. Probably why his supposed book has not been published, despite, from what I hear on here, the fact that he has been "getting ready" to release it for years. Publishing companies will put out ridiculous books written by adults, but they will not publish something this ridiculous from a young kid.
Of course, he could also be a 50 year old man, who has just completely lost it also.
And don't be afraid to put your age up here. As long as you can talk, reason, and discuss like an adult(which so far you seem to have no problem with) you should be proud of your age. Don't try to hide it from people, because that makes them think you have something to hide.

________SNIP___________ Maybe I don't want to reveal who I am, what previous books I have written (several, and one published in four different languages and sold in many museums), etc. because I really don't want to be harrassed by immature computer geeks like you two that iwould probably give them bad reviews on Amazon, try to sign me up for magazine subscriptions, and whatever othermischeif adolescents of your ilk can do with people's identities.

And you really must be a little kid or extremely ignorant if you think I am a "14 year old" I have fought in wars, and have traveled all over the world. If you watched less cartoons and more "history channel" you would probably have seen me many times.

You are liars as well. I have always provided my sources for information. You are just frustrated that I can,so you invent your excuses. You are both newbies here and too lazy to read the previous posts on these subjects with all the references.

I am a full time museum director and can only work on this in my rare spare time. I stay on these boards because some of the discussions (not from the likes of you, of course), had brought up important points that have required a second look at some ideas, and the necessity of additional chapters. If I released the book two years ago, it would not be as important as it will be now. Do I care if you believe any of this? No. You are entirely inconsequential, and have contributed nothing to any these discussions.

Stick to the subjects of these threads. Your personal attacks only reveal to everyone here what you really are.