Actually it was 13 Seals and 14 porpoises, 27 mammals in all. I agree these could not all be "intact" as their combined bodies might mass close to the orca! But the original account stated one seal was still in the throat, and presumeably still intact.

I apologise, 13 seals and 14 porpoises, typing from a book requires more concentration than copy+pasting. Where did that last bit of info come from if I may inquire? I failed to find the original account so if you would like to point me into it's direction, it would be helpful.

EDIT
And apologies again, finally I did find a mention of suction feeding in regards to orcas:

(Talking about Sperm whales) Suction is achieved by an up and down movement of the tongue and of the hyoid apparatus. Some toothless species, like beaked whales, have 2 V-shaped grooves under the throat. These grooves must allow the pharyngeal region to expaand during suction. The slippery species usually eaten (squid) are sucked up more deeply into the mouth.By contrast, the Killer whale most definitely uses it's teeth, as seen by the scars it has left on prey that managed to escape, such as pinnipeds or other cetaceans and by the numerous documents where they are seen pulling pieces from their prey

Whales and Seals, Biology and Ecology


On the original topic of dragons, i believe you still owe other people some answers/ and more specific sources:





To your credit, you did post a source in another thread (http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=118737&st=105 for the interested), however I would also be interested in the articles by the scientists that aaccording to you have investigated sonar and sound recordings. The only sonar scans I know of were in Loch Ness and they turned out nothing-over and over again.

Apparently Undead did not understand me. An argument can be made that ALL reports of dinosaurs, lake monsters, sea serpents, pterosaurs, and thunderbirds COULD be dragons. In the west, people feel that using the "D" word will simply bring more ridicule, although in the orient cryptids are often referred to as dragons.

From the Wiki on Champ:

"One piece of (still inconclusive) evidence, though not a "sighting" per se, is the recording of what seems to be echolocation from within the lake by the Fauna Communications Research Institute in 2003, working as part of a Discovery Channel program. The group has concluded that the sounds they have recorded are similiar to that of a Beluga Whale or perhaps an Orca, although no dolphin or whale species is known to live in the lake.[9] Study of the Mansi Photo in this context has led to speculation that rather than a neck and head, the photo shows a flipper of some large animal in the act of rolling.[10"

Even Nessie once had a valid sonor reading. But remember that many of these creatures, like Champ and Nessie have had eyewitness reports out of the water, and moving with legs, not flippers as we would imagine a "dragon". Perhaps dragons are actually mammals. Some are scaly. Maybe a kind of seal or whale that evolved into a kind of long necked hunter becasue this is such a succesful design.

Because the long neck has serpent connotations, this may be why they are called flying serpents and the like.

Back to whales, the scientists doing the assesments of prey species consumed do not seem to buy into the prey sharing too much as they calculate how many otters and seals are consumed by the numbers of whiskers, claws, teeth , etc. Their studies would be of little use if they believed several whales were all eating parts off the same small seal or otter, which for these small prey, the idea seems a bit absurd.

I have little doubt that when orcas take squid, and other small prey they probably use an abreviated form of the suction technique, though this prey is not such a staple that they evolved special body structures to do this as well as the whales that are specialist squid eaters.

This is an effective technique for other cetaceans that do not prey share (beside the fact that sea otters usually do not compose a large part of an orcas diet unless other prey sources are unavailable) and was probably used before this was discovered, prey sharing was still news in regards to the resident population in 2006 for example and a lot of articles on it are recent. Do you have a recent source that still employs this method? Again, it's an estimate, not an exact measurement and they need to go on something. Most if not all scientists studying the live animals however seem to 'buy into it' and observe it frequently and routinely as exempliefied by the many articles and books I listed. Besides, as stated before, dead orcas do not wash up that often so examining stomach contents is not exactly a commonly practised examination and food intake is mainly calculated by observed kills or hunts.


That is an assumption on your part and not supported by any scientific evidence, nevertheless not impossible, as I said, some very abundant and small prey may be taken whole however, this is the exception rather than the norm.

We do still exist.
Interaction between our species and yours is a very sensitive matter, however we are negotiating matters with world leaders dues to inevitable hostile interactions with people of both species however you may not get to see us in your or my lifetime.

Basic story:
God does exist in a spiritual level, many humans have realised this.
Dragons were gods first creation before Adam & Eve.
God actively helped us both and punished us both -The Great Flood- -The Meteorite strike-
Our species has much more advanced technologies such as "UFOs" and our greatest development, the interdimensional travel device which has allowed to leave Earth and Human kinds war on us earlier in history. We do forgive you but there are several terrorist groups that are actively hostile and have been engaged in wars with them.

This post is part of Project Vanguard and more information may be released.

oh my! at last one so called 'alien species''!
my foot!

I somehow missed this post, but must now comment as to its absurdity. I give the 'real' dragons too much credit to state something so silly as what was stated by the person claiming to be ' Dragon 029'.. Instead, it was written by a mere human who does not understand there could never have been a "war" between dragons and mankind, or they would have easily destroyed the latter....... even without the alledged flying saucers (which is not to say dragons are not responsibile for certain UFOs, though not in the sense of piloting machines). He is not even aware that the dragon slaying fairy tales are generally quite late in their fabrication, and for centuries the dragons were regarded as mankind' Gods, and even today, few Chrisitans realize that Yahweh is one of these dragon assistants to the Creator.

Humans with iron age weapons would be incapable of killing such creatures, and if they ever had, there would be 'trophies' of their remains, displayed along with the 'fake' dragon remains still in the collections of various European churches. But because people continuously saw these creatures, the greatest 'imagined' accomplishment of any human 'hero' would be to kill one, so this is why these myths were invented.

The Bible and other ancient texts reveal the true nature of dragons, as 'assistants' to a creator entity, who could not be here, so modified modified/intrusted these creatures to insure the survival of the primate that would become modern man. And this is why they were regarded as Gods in virtually every ancient culture. "Dragon #29" is apparently unaware of this fact, but imagines fairytales of mere humans with swords "slaying" vastly superior creatures with primitive weapons. Just so you know, '29', the most famous of all dragonslaying fairytales (St. George) was not even invented until a 1000 years after the real 'Saint's' death. For centuries the writings of the greatest men in the Christian Chruch acknowledged dragons as the heavenly creatures called Seraphim and Cherubim. The dragonslaying legends were invented much later to keep the ignorant peasants 'interested' in the Church and its mythology.

Welcome to UM 29, and, apparently, to Earth.

Your story may be a bit hard to swallow for UM members without some proof of your nature, (myself included) but please don't let that deter you from posting your ideas.

dragons definitely exist, i just saw one the other day on tv. its called a komodo dragon. if megalania was alive today, it would be considered a dragon. why not pterodactyls? they are true dragons

I agree. And there is plenty of ancient art of giant winged reptiles as well as all of the sightings. So what were these people seeing? If they were in fact 'surviving pterosaurs", billions would have had to lived and died from the KT event until now, yet none have been found. So these creatures were either invented by thousands of peple all over the world, or what they saw was no mere dumb animal. Nor did the ancients say they were. They were mankind's gods, and still considered deities in much of the oreintal world.

Oh, the irony. No offense, but I don't think you are in a position to call someone else's dragon post absurd.

the thing with large avian cryptids, is that a population would be needed, and they would be seen daily, not 1000's of sightings but millions of sightings should have been recorded if these beasts survived until recently. their is every reason to believe that these people were no liars, but its likely they based dragon legends on pterodactyl fossils.

Komodo's are varanids, also known as monitor lizards. Dragon is just a common name, not its actual name. Megalania is also a varanid.
If you have varanids as dragons, you can not have pterosaurs as dragons as the are not closely related. Pterosaurs may have flown, but that does not make them dragons. That makes them reptiles with wings.

DC, i can prove to you a dog exists. i can prove an elephant exists. i can prove the ceolecanth exists. i can prove gigantopithecus did exist. i can even prove that I exist.
can you prove to me, dragons exist. or did. with actual proof? like i could show you for the above.

i guess not eh?

You know, Dragons are veri illogical. Imagine a dragon, big, strongs, quick. Now why would that need wings or fire breath? A raptor. Perfect hunting predator. Why would a raptor needs wings? It wouldn't it's efficient the way it is.

No, remember what he said? Dragons hide their evidence. Throughout the course of their evolution they were smarter than anything else to the point where they could have predicted paleontology and forensics and destroyed every indication of their existence. Duh.

ummm...the velociraptor basically had wings. well...kinda. it had feathers anyway

I think he meant wings as a mechanism for flight. =P

LOL, DC thinks dragons are angels and/or Gods... everyone knows you don’t need evidence to believe in Gods...

Ahhh, right! it makes total sense now. how could i be so stupid?!

*smacks himself on the head*................. i shoulda had a V8...

on a matter of consistency, it may have already been covered in this voluminous thread (which i have resurrected to encourage DC to stick to relevant threads instead of hijacking everybody else's)

DC cannot decide whether his dragons have feathered wings, batlike wings (six limbs- or the 4 limbed wyvren variant) or have extended rib gliding apparatus.
hardly a polished theory.

this is because he is trying to reconcile all examples of these mythical composite beasties into one absurd theory.


since everyone was complaining that he is misbehaving and derailing other threads i thought it best to give him a pond to swim in of his own.....perhaps those who arent up to speed on his theory or the dragon debate can catch up by browsing this thread.

happy reading

I didn't hijack the previous thread, the physical description of the "sea monster" had many attributes of the classic Western, or Sea dragon. How different would it be if somebody claimed it was a plesiosaur. Why wouldn't that be "hijcking the thread"?

Until a clear photograph is produced, we cannot say exactly what dragons look like. That they had wing and flew is pretty clear from the ancient accounts.. We also don't know if dinosaurs were endotherms or ectotherms. Does that mean the don't exist?

The reason some people are 'angry' is because I can an excellent argument for the existence of the dragons our ancestors believed were real, and which are apparently the mysterious, large reptilian cryptids still reported with great regularity.

its not just the last thread, but lots of threads get derailed....often disruptive to the conversation.

clear photo? but i thought there were lots of 'reliable' depictions and descriptions...or so you claim. Eyewitness accounts etc. of roman fishermen and admirals, historians and scientists etc. what about your chinese bixie, surely the chinese and the mesopotamians were able to accurately depict those that taught them their technology? What about the Arch of Titus? or pics of qetzalcoatl? What about jehovah and his feathered protective wings? what about the cave drawings from around the world? what about Eyewitness accounts from medieval europe? Hundreds of witnesses at a time apparently....What about the thunderbirds and mothman? what about nessie and the other lake monsters?

The fact that these only share traits, but under scruitiny dissimilar, indicate surely that their 'dragons' are not the same? your theory attempts to tie all these and more together does not work if you award them all 'reliable' status as you do.

to achieve your aims you have to mispresent evidence, hide things, neglect things...this is done consciously because it is a selective process you use.

you do not speak for any ancestors and do not know or understand what they believed. you do not understand mythology or the concepts involved.
youv'e got a novel theory which is entertaining, but ultimately wrong, horribly wrong. God help the US military if they've got you working for them....hopefully you are more critical and less creative in your dayjob....dont quit it just yet.

so whats my point?

well, theres 2 really, first....id modify the way i present my argument if i were you.

it wouldnt be so bad if you were like, "hey guys, what if...." but no your all like "this is fact, anyone who questions my interpretation is an ignorant troll".

like most here, its not your theory everyone has a problem with...beyond not swallowing it....but the manner in which you conduct yourself on these (and other) forums.

And the real point im trying to make is...

There are a host of theories here i dont swing with, but hey thats what makes this place interesting. Even those who defend their outlandish theories well are worthy of respect, as long as they show respect for others.

so keep your theory, but play nice. If folk question it and point out stuff they cant agree with then why not be an adult and be gracious. I disagree strongly with your theory and the points in which you and Archosaur are in agreement included (most of them) but he has my respect, like many others....why? go figure.
Thing is now you are in a rut and have a bit of a bad rep, which is a shame because ive read some good things from you, often insightful...on this topic and others...how about you show this side of you more? It really is possible to debate these things like gentlemen without the defamation and the patronizing attitude. Im no angel and like everybody, just as capable of being nasty....but insults dont win arguments....and they are not conducive to healthy debate (which is what everybody would prefer im sure)

If a dragon thread drops off the bottom of the board, its usually for a reason...that folk have had enough of it for a while.....and lets face it who on UM doesnt know about your theory and your beliefs? There's gotta be more strings to your bow than dragons and german bashing.

if however you enjoy the atmosphere you create around yourself, well then im wasting my time....and can only wish you happy hunting.

thank you for your attention.

No, they appear to be flesh and blood creatures that eat food. Humans believing they are gods and actually being gods are two different things.

I certainly don't feel like I'm in a rut, and I could care less what a handful of name-calling, immature punks think. Every time they open their mouths to attack me, they only demonstrate their ignorance to everyone else.

The "real people" can see what's really going on. The stupid trolls don't matter. That's why they are not worth the time to repeat "evidence" I have repeated time and time again here to real people. If they want to fantasize the evidence isn't there, let them. The people who matter have already read it here, and if the trolls don't have the attention span to read more than a paragraph, they cannot contribute anything worthwhile here to begin with. Their collective knowledge comes from cartoons and video games, nothing more. Listen to them. They say how "awesome" silly children's cartoons are. They are just kids who no nothing and cannot contrbute anthing here.

It would be nice if people behaved in a mature manner here, but this is a subject that immature children who want to see their posts on the internet can't resist to attack, because the idea of living dragons seem preposterous to them. I don't care. Several people have read my manuscript, serious, intelligent adults, and they think it is great, and that it all makes sense and seamlessly fits into the historical record and is largely compatible with science. I am not here to argue with useless punks. There are those rare times when somebody intelligent contributes something new to the discussion, and it makes makes up for listening to the rants of the trolls. I am here because the discusions with real people have given me some new insights and the work will be the better for it. But these foul-mouth punks contribute nothing. But hopefully some new "awesome" cartoon will be released, and they will hopefully go away, and forget this site and won't come back.

New dinosaurs are discovered every year. Apparently you didn't know that, but somehow, I am not surprised. There are pterosaurs now, that are almost carbon copies of medieval dragons, only smaller.

Like it was said before, it was not just that thread, it been many thread. Threads about angels, spiders, hell, and sea creatures. The only person who seems to think that dragons are relevant to any of those topics is you. As a matter of fact didn't Saruman even have to step in to tell you that you were off topic??




See, this is my point exactly. You simply cannot carry on a conversation without insulting someone, can you?? What's the matter?? Feeling a little insecure because EVERYONE here can point out the holes and flaws in your idiotic theory?? I will give you this, at least your in the right topic. Now, if we can just get you to stop acting like a child, we would all be able to discuss things like adults. Do you think you can handle an adult conversation without the insults??

draconic chronicler, You have been warned a number of times now to stop insulting and being offensive to other members. You have also been warned about thread derailment.
Please read the PM that is heading your way.

Back on topic, thankyou.

Thank you dude. To add to the list of derailed topics - Giant Spiders, Dinosaurs, Mosasaurs and snakes are all there too.

Maybe that PM from Lottie will change the way DC treats other members.

Dude you sound just like my best friend. He is even back in school studying these sorts of things. I used to knock on him a bit for this but on the other hand, his IQ is in the 150's. He is also certified crazy, but he has had theories in the past that years later were proven by others. He believes that the last dragons were the thunderbirds of the Native Americans. If it is true I do believe that he could be the one to find the evidence.

Maybe that PM from Lottie will change the way DC treats other members.

That would most definately be nice. I am more than happy to listen to, consider, and respect ANYONES opinions, as long as they show the same courtesy to everyone else, and realize that 99% of the posts on here are just that, opinions. When myself, or anyone else, is insulted for having our own opinions, that is where I draw the line.

Now, honestly, I don't even know where this topic is headed anymore. So, perhaps we should start from scratch.

Now, the theory that I orignially posted, was the idea that the legends of dragons came from possible remnant dinosours that survived, and perhaps had evolved over time, and lived into the age of primitive man. I know there are many holes in this theory, that is why it is just a theory.
I am not saying that dragons existed as we know them in legends and myths as firebreathing, intelligent, giant, flying lizards, but rather that primitive man created these stories from the misunderstanding of some real creatures that they saw.
Now, before ANYONE goes into the religious interpretations of dragons, that is not for this topic. You can start your own topic about the connection between dragon myths and religions. I started this thread to look at the myths from a scientific point of view. Not a theological point of view.

Who were you replying to on this post??

As for the thunderbirds, it would all depend on your interpretation of what a dragon should be. The thunderbirds legends of the native americans were of giant, feathered birds, or in some cases, a creature much resembling a pterosaur. Neither of these really fits the typical descriptions of dragons, but the pterosaur comes closer. And that would actually fit in with my theory of the remnant dinosaurs. However, that is only if the legends were true, and these creatures actually existed. I honestly do not believe any type of dinosaur could have existed within the last many millenia, even if they did survive that long, due to the dominance of man on the planet. There is no proof that any dinosaurs lived into the age of man, much less into the last few centuries.

I like your theory a lot, heaps of holes but its too romantic an idea to let slip. I'll PM you later and if you like we could attempt to peaice together our own sort of theory on the remenant dinosaur basis to finally challenge DC's?

Are you talkin dinosaurs or mans vision of a dinosaur? Scienists have long theorized and have some evidence that birds are the true desendants of dinosaurs. The science channel or discovery channel a couple of years back had a special on the plausability of dragons. Most of the ones that they computer generated had feathers. I do not exactly believe in dragons, but on the other hand I could have said the same about other myths until a point of time. In future time...who knows.

Set 3 Million Years Ago

An Epic Journey based on the Revolutionary new Theory

The Incredible struggle of humankind to survive and evolve in a Brutal, Violent world, ruled by Dinosaurs

Rise of Man

This is the Way it Was

Yes, scientists believe that surviving dinosaurs eventually evolved into birds. However, scientist also beleived that primates evolved into man, yet, there are still primates in todays world along with the evolved species.
What my theory is, is that some species of dinos either survived into the age of man, or some of the still evolving species of dinos, that are some of todays birds, and when seen by primitive man, spawned the myths and legends of dragons.

And I saw the discovery channel special on dragons, and it was just basically a special on IF dragons had existed as we know them in fairy tales, how it MIGHT have been possible. Possible scientific explanations for fire breathing, flying, and the evolution of the different types of dragons reported in mythology. It was an interesting show, but no actual grounding in physical science, just conjecture.

DC, I'd be interested in what species that is.

667, as dinosaurs were very successful creatures, if any had survived to the time of man, they would likely have spread throughout the world. The original idea of remnant dinosaur populations was popular in the 50s because, at the time, the view was that dinosaurs were slow, stupid, and unable to compete with modern mammals (an idea that gratified the ego, no doubt, not not terribly accurate). I don't think that any dinosaurs survived to the time of mankind (though I'd live very much to be proved wrong). If I had to go for an entirely naturalistic answer (no aliens, genetic manipulation, dimensional travelers, psionics, or deity dragons, etc) I would go with a combination of dinosaur bones inspiring legends, and inherited fear of massive reptiles. The problem here is the strength of the legends, even in places without bone deposits. I believe that there is more going on here, but please continue to explore new ideas.

I'm inclined to agree that living dinosaurs are an unlikely candidate. Megafauna and recognisable fossils (eg. skulls) would be more likely.

Unlikely yes. Cinematic, hugely.

10000 bc, yes (though the culture and technology- amongst other glaring inconsistancies- seems a bit advanced for 10000 bc, but hey who cares about accuracy and bad reviews when you have multi-million dollar SFX). One million Years bc almost original Godizilla in cheesiness (Raquel Walsh. rreowr)

Oh to be a caveman...

I fondly remember One Million Years BC. Twelve year-old males would remember 26 year-old gorgeous females cast in a dinosaur movie. Nevermind the inaccuracies, more of Raquel in her fur bikini!

How is 10,000 BC? I've not yet seen it.

i loved 1 million years b.c, i actually just came across this topic today, lucky i did, i DONT think dragons exist but i think there may be a possibility that the steriotypical dragons of today are actually exagerations of living dinosaurs, http://www.1timothy4-13.com/files/bible/dino.html i just stumbled upon this site whilst searching living dinosaurs on google, theres no evidence here just a collection of supposed sightings, explantations and one or two bible passages, i also think that the bible should not be taken litterally, you can go down the wrong road and interprate something the the wrong way

One possible explanation is crocodiles we already know that the ancient egyiptans worshiped them as gods so maybe they were the cause of most of the dragon stories along with the odd dino bone

Funny you should mention that. I just saw 'Monster Crocs' on National Geographic, and they made a similar analogy regarding those specimans that grow to over 20'.
Given that it takes 80 years for a croc to get to those sizes, I can see why, in some cases, we only have accounts of a single dragon 'terrorising' one particular area.
Likewise, I can see why dragon sightings declined in relation to the refinement of gunpowder and high powered rifles...

Or maybe, its a lizard made big.

Waiting for the DVD to go to rental, or a few of my friends to give it some rave reviews. I'm a little worried that I've already seen all the movie has to offer in the trailers :/
$3 and 1 1/2 hours I can deal with, but $25... Well let's say thats getting close to a "Hulk smash now!! Grrarr!!!" moment.


That and the opening scenes from Barbarella :wow: What a time for cult movies. Wonder if Katherine Heigl will have the same 'effect' that young Jane Fonda did...

Dinosaurs = Good

Babes in Bikinis = Good

There fore,

One Million BC = Good


No Dinosaurs = Bad

Woman that bare more similarities to men = Bad

Therefore,

10000 BC = Crap.

Very good to see that those of us who are getting ever closer to fossilisation are still able to positively influence the culture of the emerging species

So you seen 10000 BC?
I'm sure I saw some megafuana and dinos in the trailers (one of those glaring inconsistancies I mentioned earlier, more in this review )

Speaking of megafauna and pop culture, anyone remember that photoshop of shark attacking helicopter? Jaws 5 Link

Love that pic, hehe.

No there are no dinosaurs in 10000 BC, it is an abysmall film. It is so boring, so stupid and so slow that I found myself with stigmata half way through, for what I assume was being able to withstand such a bland, torturous peice of crap.