Do you mean this little beauty Arch?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus

It still does not have the body built of an alleged dragon, nor does it have six pair of limbs.

Furthermore, I dislike greatly dragon cryptid fans tendency to claim every bit of ...well most of anything...to be a dragon.
I would rather say David Icke is right than that they are.

Hmm.....pretty much all of them. But I keep an openmind. Mothman and the Jersey Devil are two though that I find the least believable.

I'm thinking more along the lines of myth type creatures though. Not so much along the lines of finding a new species of something we already know to exist.

Neighbour do you really believe the dragon cannot biologically exist? I admit that it is unlikely and there are several aspects of the dragon which seem entirely fantasy such as fiery breath but if you consider that there are other creatures that have adopted the same evolutionary advancements then i think a dragon could biologically exist. i just dont think they ever did.

The other creatures i was refering to is the Draco Volans whose external ribs which is a possible explanation for a dragon to fly and have four ground bound limbs.

The pelycosaur also has external ribs along its spine.

As for fiery breath there are creatures with similar mechanisms which would potentially apply to a dragon. Take the Bombadier beetle whose hot abdominal spit could work in a similar way to a dragons breath.

I know its not entirely on the topic but i thought i would interrupt anyway

As if there's not already an overabundance of freaking dragon threads extant.

I was merely replying to neighbours post stating the biology of a dragon is not possible.
If you dont like dragon threads, surely it would be wise not to visit them.

On a second note i realise this threads is about cryptids and have already stated my opinions on the least likely to have existed.

Therefore replying to other peoples opinions really does seem the only way to continue being involved in this thread.

Of course 667 was replying to Draconic Chronicler, a notorious thread hijacker with his ludicrous theories "billions of people inadvertently worship dragons." Perhaps you agree.

Of course i dont agree. Infact in my last post i stated i do not believe in dragons.
Nor do i get on with DC.

Regardless of who Neighbour was talking to he brought up a point i felt like replying to. You neednt fear that i will turn all threads into dragons ones. I wont.
But i think i was well in my rights to reply to Neighbour with a dragon related post.

Okay, so where is this "has six limbs" thing coming from? I only know of a single dragon who supposedly had six legs, but all the other drawings, sightings, sketches, ect. supposedly have only four.

Thanks for coming, DC.

Perhaps you should actually do some research, and will find find that it is true. Can you really disprove anything DC says?

I think the real question is can DC really prove anything he says?? And I mean with FACTS not with his "interpret to suit his needs" method.

Hmm, does Santa count as a cryptid?

Hi Otterclaw

I dont think anyone is proposing a 6 legged dragon. More i think people are saying for a dragon to have 2 pairs of legs (e.g. four legs) as well as a pair of wings that would equate to 6 limbs.
Its not the only way the wings can be justified but it is the most common. And the 6 limbs theory is highly unlikely because no other species in known history other than insects, which seem to have taken an evolutionary path of their own, has ever developed 6 wings. Nor does any species (again excepting insects) have the upper body bone structure to cope with an extra pair of limbs.

My personal preference for justifying the wings is external ribs, but this thread isnt really the place for that.

Many have tried.......... all have failed.

To disprove something you must first be presented with proof. You, as far as i am aware, have not achieved this.

Dariune...I'm not a believer in Dragons...Though, I know you cannot be so closed minded...If scientist sat around just waiting for proof to be shown, just to disprove it, they would have nothing to do...You cnat just expect the believers to find proof...The disbelievers must also find reasons why it cnat be true...

I know many Christians and a few Muslims, not a single one worships dragons.

Next?

Actually yes we can. DC doesn't have reliable resources, doesn't show ANY resources for that matter..., picks and chooses what facts he wants to present, takes claims out of context, tries to tie theories together that don't make any sense whatsoever, won't let us know the name of his "book" that has ALL of this information present in it supposedly, etc. etc. Not trying to be rude or demeaning or anything, but DC just isn't proving to be very trustworthy or reliable in his information. Don't believe in something just because you want to, believe in it because there are reliable facts to support your claims. Otherwise, you're just going to make yourself seem undereducated on the subject (not in reference to you, just some words of wisdom).

Ah, right. Stupid on my part. (I'm not sure if this is a smiley that is blushing or it is sunburnt, so just pretend that I am blushing)
I suppose that is what I get for trying to talk on a forum when I'm cranky and tired. Anyhow, there are lots of stories of dragons that only have two legs and wings, as well. That would be four-limbed, I am assuming.

Agreed entirely. Not a single fact, nor barest shred of evidence.

Unfortunately I would have to say my favorite creature of legend...The Dragon.

I am one of the least close minded people i know of. I also do nto believe in dragons but i accept everything (well presented) as reasonable until prooved otherwise.

But to disprove something there must at least be some small amount of fact to backup the claim. DC presents us only with flights of fancy and hypothesis. Not once have i said what he says is untrue or in fact that i do not believe him or in his beliefs. All i was reffering to was the fact that DC has a habit of jumping and spouting out about his beliefs (whether they are apt to the thread or not) with absolutely no facts or evidence to back it up.

Therefore i really dont know why you gave me that speech.

Probably becasue they never read the bible themselves, but just listen to preachers.

If they had read the bible they would see that Yahweh/Jehovah/God has wings, spews fire, eats calves, lambs, children and midianite virgins, ordered Moses to make and worship a 'dragon' idol, has dragons as his highest assistants, and that ancient Christians and Persians alike all said he was a dragon, after even Jesus says he is not 'his father' but a murderous creature.

Next?

My 'beliefs' have nothing to do with it. The point is, THE ENTIRE WORLD believed in dragons for thousands of years. And even today, people STILL SEE dragon like creatures all over the world.

These are facts.

Now were humans all over the world, for thousands of years, all so stupid that they feared (and recorded seeing) merely figments of their imagination? These same people were so brilliant in so many other ways? Or is there some basis to these beliefs and sightings, then and today?

All who have tried have succeeded, as every single theory you place forward is beyond the reaches of physics, biology, religion, and even common sense. Your just not mature enough to admit defeat. Laughable.




True, he has failed miserabley in this department, only being able to quote legends, myths, and fairy tales as proof. However, pretty much everyone on here has been able to prove to him that his theories are not only impossible, but border on psychotic. See my above statement for the reason he keeps plugging along.

Much more than fairytales. The leading scientists, eyewitness accounts of reliable people, all acknowledged dragons too. The problem here is that I am dealing with some very ignorant people here who know virtually nothing about the past. I am sorry they didn't have cameras until the last 170 years, or that the dragons haven't died or left their bones for you to find. But everything else, everywhere suggests they are are real creaures........ or the human race has been 'wrong' for all but the last 500 years of our existence.

As a real Historian, I happen to give our ancestors a little more credit than you do. And I also acknowledge that there appear to be certain truths in all of the world religions. And the one thing virtually ALL of the ancient religions have in common is the belief in dragons as deities. And this of course, includes the religions founded on the Bible, with all of its dragon lore.

No not stupid. Not at all. But these are the same Anscestors that though volcanos were gods. The same who felt that women were naturally inferior to men. The same who thoght the world was flat and the same who thought flight was impossible. Not stupid, just not blessed with as much trial and error ibn history as we are.

I have a great deal of interest in people of the past and their cultures. Through my findings i have a great deal of respect for their beliefs, their ways and the fact that if it werent for the people of the past, the people of the present could not be. But they got it wrong. Yes many cultures believed in dragons (or variants there of) That much is pretty much undeniable. But the dragons are all different with different traits and different charicteristics. More importantly it seems obvious to me that the dragon started out as a way of explaining things which were unexplainable to the people of he time. They didnt have the internet to check out if that volcano was a god or not.

You have presented no evidence to backup your claims DC. You have given very few plausible answers and you dodge our questions as a politician does. It is very hard to take you seriously and to be honest i rather feel you give people with a passionate interest in dragon mythology (such as myself) a bad name by being so insistant on your theories and being blatant in your disregard for other peoples opinions.

Actually, no. Virtually everyone believed dragons were real until at least 1500 AD. And by then everyone knew the earth was.t flat or that volcanoes were not gods. And everyone who was a Christian by default believed in dragons becasue their theology said they were real.

No one can provide any real evidence for God, yet billions believe. There is actually more evidence for dragons that there is for any God, or as I say , there is better evidence for them being the same entity (Yahweh, at least). If you don't believe dragons are real, that's your right. I don't see you making the same harrangue that God isn't real.

I have presented a great deal of evidence that an entity worshipped by billions of people was orginally a dragon god. But since gods don't die, I cannot prove they are real by presenting their bones. But everyone here knows thousands of people claim to have seen dragon like creatures, and if they are not imagining it, the only explanations suggest something that must be more than a mere unthinking animal.

Back on topic please, we have plenty of threads dedicated to dragons already.

The discussion in this thread is which cryptid(s) do you think is/are least likely to exist ?

None, but I am willing to change my mind if any convincing evidence comes up.

..............WHAT?! So, where in the Bible does it say that God is a blood thirsty monster? (Not saying that is what a dragon is, but assuming the "eats children and midianite virgins" part, well...)

Neighbor, calm down. I understand you don't believe in what DC is saying, but we should all just chill for a minute.

Ah, yes, but most people think of dragons! *headdesk* *headdesk*

lol

*grumbles* Not as funny as it is painful...

My opinion, is actually I think creatures like Vampires and Werewolves are least likely to be real. Why? For one thing, we would have a lot of woman staggering around with bloody bite marks in their necks.

see........ i do belive in dragons and werewolves ...never ment the whole lol as an offense. it was cute how you said get back on topic lol thats all

Yeah, I was just kidding around when I grumbled.

I believe in dragons but werewolves...hmmm. I don't know. It seems like most of the world of cryptozoology has turned their back on them. I mean, if you're searching for bigfoot, fine. You can go and run around the woods all you want. Same with Nessie, and the dogmen of Michigan. But werewolves, vampires, ect. you can't just go up and say, "Hey, I'm a cryptozoologist and I'm taking a survey. Now, are you a werewolf?"

Although it would be fun to see some of the reactions of the people you surveyed.

if you look up michigan dog man, you will see people are still investagating them. not as werewolves but dog men. some even think they are skin walkers

Yes, I have thought a lot about dogmen/wolfmen. They are some of my favirote cryptids, although I'm not really sure whether to think of them as possible werewolves or not. The reason I don't think of them that way is becuase I think of them as more of a human/dog not a human who can turn into a dog. I don't know, though.

yeah ya have a point there

Another cryptid i find highly unlikely is the phoenix. I just cant see a creature ressurecting itself from its own ashes.

yeah but it would rock

Yes, I really like the idea of the pheonix, but I'm pretty sure they don't exist. Maybe some sort of exotic bird that people saw and came up with the idea, but not a real life one. It would be cool, though. I think I remember reading somewhere that there was a bird who cleaned itself using some type of gland that often looked like smoke or something. Eh, I forget.

Good point they lack the critical transformation process

I agree. I must admit the cryptid i have the hardest time believing in is the Phoenix.

Fine forum posters, let's not confuse cryptid animals with mythic animals.........................

alright alright then. The crypid i find to be the least true is the The Wolpertinger. Its a jackalope. With wings!

DRAGONS.

And Werewolves and Burrunjor.

If I saw it I'd believe it, but..

The Loch Ness Monster - Nessie seems to be more of a tourism icon than any plausible real animal. With unsuccessful expeditions, death-bed confessed hoaxes, disapproving zoologists, and this new "adapted from saltwater to freshwater" hypothesis further-limiting the suspected animals that would fit the description.

Point Pleasant's Mothman - If people see the background bird in The Wizard of Oz as a munchkin hanging, then a sandhill crane standing next to a car can be the Mothman. Mothman being a skinwalker/demon/spirit seems more plausible rather than a half-man half-moth Batman villain.

-Pol