This carving from a Pre-Dynasty Pharaoh nicknamed 'The Scorpion King' (Narmer) era shows two interlocked Brontosaurus'. If you know anything about my theories on this (most do, Enoch, dinosarus, animal/Nephilim hybrids, etc, ask if you have questions) this DOES make sense. Dinosaurs would ONLY have been around in the pre-dynasty era.



(I put the blue arrow etc in to show wwhere it is. The original pic is found on this page: http://www.crystalinks.com/narmer.html )

They also (same king's era) have complote mps of the sky constellations (angels taught astrology, astronomy etc) as shown here:



This dates back to the EXACT time of 11:57pm July 3rd 14000 BCE

They also had a connecion between a constellation and the throne of God, and a nearby constellation as th tree of life. The throne of God IS in space, and the ONLY ones who could have told them that was ANGELS.

Egyptians have many winged beings within thir art, and even in THIS kings time it's shown, right next to 'The Twins' the constellation of Gemini (angels taught astrology, Egyptians had astrology, etc)




What more evidence do you people damn well want??? You can't ignore it just because YOU don't wat to accept it. It's all damn well there, not just in this post, but in ALL the many others I've posted. Don't worry, I'm keeping count of evidence, whether you choose to accept it or not.

This is going in 4 different and relevant forums as this relates to many things.

Look like giraffes to me........

I think they look like lions with loong necks.

Oh come on Ashley, those aren't Brontosaurus... those are lion bodies with serpent necks... surely you can see that...

This is a brontosaurus...



They don't even look remotely alike save a long neck... and look at the tails of the carvings... look like monkey/cat tails.

It is good to see that someone has that much dedication in what they believe in !

Anyways i think you may have let your imagenation get the better of you, no offence.

It seems that yes when you first look at them they do look like dinosours but indeed you have to think there is no evidence that dinosours were alive in egyptians times, and also that the egyptians had any knowledge about these large animals.

But who is to say that they might of had some knowledge....

Ashley, the palette of Narmer (translates Catfish) has been known for well over 200 years and the creatures depicted are mammalian in body configuration (notice the lion-like heads, the cat-like body and cheetah-like hindquarters, lront legs and tail. A Brontosaurus (actually called an aptosaurus) is saurian, and by the size of the bones found, would be much larger with elephant-like legs (only much much larger) instead felinoid. You really grasp at straws to "prove" your mythology!

I have to agree with Mako on this one - not wanting to stamp on anyones beliefs - but to me it looks very much like the body of a big cat with the head (and body) of a snake.

The Egyptians are well known for putting different heads on different bodies.

Just my opinion.

Oh no it's not. Posting the same thread multiple times is considered spam. I've deleted the other three and everyone's replies will be moved into this thread.

more than one persons said it , its a cat with a long neck.

Righttttt..... so whats a cat called with a long neck?

A figment of imagination, much like the many other fantastical animals you can find on ancient pottery.

Ultimately, you cannot call something a brontosaurus if it has an upright neck and a curly tail. It just isn't physically possible. To say nothing of the sleek body, completly unfit to support the weight of such a long neck.

What you can do is find something that has a similar body, like say the sleek body of a giraffe, and that exhibits the identical behaviour displayed by thepicture, which is referred to as necking (a uniquely giraffe thing to do), and then you would have a good argument as to what this creature could be.

Ancient Egypt is full of stange animal and human hybrids. I mean, c'mon, the sphynx, the jackel-headed god of the underworld, their cat-goddess, etc...it was just part of their mythology. So a lion with serpent qualities does not indicate a dinosaur (or remotely look like one).

You do prove a good point but its Ancient Egypt they mix and macth with heads and bodys.

So this would be a good indication that there were Lions running around with human heads in eqypt right?

Well what else is the Sphinx there for? I mean, if THIS is a carving of something that actually existed, then why not the Sphinx?

Just a few examples of the mixing and matching of ancient Egyptians.

how can sum1 confuse that wiv a bronto...

Wether or not the creature in the carving is actually an Apatosaurus to me is irrelavant.

Just do a google search for dinosuar, you will come up with literally thousands of images. Does that mean that dinosaurs were a contemporary of man? NO. It simply means that we have knowledge of dinosaurs, and are able to create a relatively accurate portrait of them.

I'm sure that ancient man probably did find fossilized bones, there are many native american stories about giant animals and humans that were created to explain the existance of large fossilized remains that they came across in their travels.

But the notion that you can prove dinosaurs were contemporary to humans based simply on a carving (or a passage in a book) to me is absurd.


And I agree the image looks nothing like a sauropod, their tails were much longer than their necks not shorter, and their limbs were designed like "pillars" to carry their enormous weight (up to 30 tons).

If ancient man had ever walked with dinosaurs you can be sure that they would have been awestruck, and the animals would have been given almost "godlike" qualities, not just depicted in a carving here and there.

Ditto…

And ditto to what everyone else has been saying: the Egyptians have a vast and varied selection of gods and goddesses, are we to presume that all these at one time walked the earth?

u guys dont have to flame her, she was just fooled by the appearence

anyhoo ya i think thats just part of the egyptian mythology mixing animal parts with others creating hybrids etc etc

its not flaming,
its just to constructive critiscism
and to tell her to research more and a bit betta thats all.
anyone from the street can say sumthing normal looks like sumthing else imploying sumthing
just doesnt mean u shuldnt research the topic properly

By the gods!!! This proves the existence of Jackal-Men! I was right all along!!!

A Reptillian/Jackal-Man conspiracy...they're in cohoots with the UFO flying demons from Hell and the Anti-Christ's New World Order led by the insideous Bush cabal! Everyone cover your butts before they shove interstellar communication towers up your arses!

well yes the creatures in the carving do have long necks....

but the bodies look wrong for a dinosaur as do the heads, and also the necks, who knows what they represent...

theres loads of examples of supposed dinosaurs in old carving/drawings/paintings, and so on and so on...

There are pictures of other gods besides the he god(s) you believe in (or if you're an athiest, just any gods), but you will not believe that those are true. Ancient Egyptions can come up with neat artistic ideas that doen't have to be true, such as Horus, Anubis, and Thoth.

:Pya

Yes yes yes, they mixed and matched. And guess where the idea for mixing human bodies with animal heads came from? They are the majority of the TRUE FORM of angels. I do recal Cherubims, representative of the 4 fixed sign of the Zodiac having 4 diggerent heads, one human the rest animal.

And yes, this ISN'T the only depiction of dinosaurs and man co-existing. There were clay statues of Stegosaurus, Allosaurus, Brontosaurus Iguanadon, etc (I'll re-post them, they were on another post before, if you want). Nor is it the first time they were WRITTEN ABOUT. In Enoch (and related texts to Enoch) it talks about the Nehplilim (angel/human hybrid offspring) further hybridizing with 200 of every known animal which then became 'great monsters' which were up to 45ft in height and devoured the Earth, filling it with blood, eating other animals, HUMANS, and even each other. They ARE dinosaurs. The significance of this Brontosaurus (or Apatosaurus both names are valid) being depicted in PRE-DYNASTY times is that this is when this event of angels and human marrying creating hybrids was going on. I don't need anyone's approval on this, I have MOUNTAINS of evidence, I was just merely sharing this new found piece. Don't knock what you haven't even looked into. I HAVE.

So, don't tell me I haven't researched, I damn well have, I just researched against the grain. Like I've said before, Enoch is the best Creationist evidence there is, and if it had have been left IN the Bble, there would be no Evolution.

Could that be a carving of the Congo's mysterious critter also considered to be a suarian?????I guess we won't know until someone actually retrieves one. The Egyptians had considerable commerce with the interior of Africa.

It's possible. It was supposed to be an Apatosaurus they ate in Africa. Maybe that particular dinosaur survived.

Still though the texts talk about animals too huge to feed, and carnivourous monsters which ate other animals/dinosaurs, and humans, filling the Earth with blood.

And I forgot to add to the other post, for those saing they got this from dinosaur fossils, that's bull. These fossils are supposed to be miles down, and even if they weren't, ALL the MANY different cultures which depict them, depict them as reptillian, maybe not this one so much, but it's a CARVING, not a photograph. There are NO animals with a long TAIL and NECK, with that body shape alive on this Earth now, nor found in the past, expcet Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus and similar sauropods.

The clay figurines made of these varied dinosaurs said in the other post were all MORE realistic than those drawn by the men who found them a few hundred years ago, like the Igauanodon. And the majority of them (there are something around the number of 70) depict them with humans.

Here's a few:







Allosaurus



Triceratops



All the above were from tombs in Peru. It's dated at 700 A.D. I personally believe they are earlier artifacts which were adopted by the Peruvians.

And this:







This was found with it and appears more like th mummification rites held in Egypt. The angels/Nephilim were said to be in EVERY CORNER OF THE EARTH, so whatever they were teaching the Egyptians was no doubt being taught elsewhere. There ARE pyramids in Peru (these were found in Mexico though), and there were dinosaurs in every corner of the Earth. Again I think these artifacts are older than what it's being dated to (which is 800 B.C. - 200 A.D.).

More information on these particular artifacts (plus information of fossilized human articulated remains in the same layers of rock dinosarus are found in) can be found herehere.

These are real genuine artifacts, fossils etc. This is what you don't hear about.

All this does is bring up the possibility that some remnant dinosaurs survived the mass extinction millions of years ago and were later wiped out by a fledging man.

It doesn't prove your fruitcake theory of angels and omnipotent deities.

Oh here's a fruitcake theory for you! Humans and dinosaurs frolicking on the hills together! That's what your're saying with 'remnant dinosaurs' still existing. Funny the texts speak differently. Running and screaming a la Jurassic Park, a major bloodbath which needed them to be wiped out by several asteroids hitting the oceans causing several tsunamis, climatic changes a global flood, and an eventual Ice Age. That IS what it says. Funny how even science has it in that order. There ARE asteroid hits evident from the 'Creatacious Period' in the ocean you know.

Remnant dinosaurs. Ha! They were mutations of animals which already existed. Man would never have survived if they hadn't been wiped out.

Hmmmm, looks like Godzilla was real!

But if they are accurate depictions of dinosaurs, made by eye-witnesses, then "Walking With Dinosaurs" was way, way, way out in their idea of what dinos looked like.......

I did say "theory" didn't I?

Essan hit the nail right on the head there. The Ica stones are indeed a hoax, and the pictures on them can be traced back to that era's comic books, were brontosaurus has massive jaws, upright necks, and occasionally munched on the hapless caveman.

Fruitcake theory is a apt description. How about cucko for coco puffs!lol

You really do need to do some research on at least the basics of Palaeontology.

The reason that we even know about them today is because in most cases the things are literally falling out of the hillsides, or laying just under the surface of the ground.

I think you missed the point of my post entirely.

The fact is that...

1) Fossil remains were available to ancient peoples.

2) They recognized them as such, and created legends and myth's to describe and explain them.

3) If ancient man had ever actually seen a dinosaur, the creatures would have been given a lot higher status and mention than a few obscure carvings, or scribbles in a book.

I still say the carvings only bear a basic similarity to actual dinosaurs, and if the carvings were in fact intended to portray a living sauropod, then the knowledge had to have come from the fossil record not first hand experience.

There was actually a show on Discover that had the theroy that ancient people came up with mythological creatures through looking at fossils. There was an isalnd in Greece where the fossils were everywhere.

Cool. I think something very similar Ashley-Star. Make a timeline.

Actually, dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.



Show me an unfossilized dinosaur skeleton, or better yet a mummified one. Wrapped up with an alien god who gave us pyramids and mirrors and velcro.

And "wow" on the defensivness in the first post.

That was the first thing that came to me.

This is an on-going battle, part of a larger battle on the board between the evolutionists and creationalists. So don't be shocked when you see these kind of posts come up alot, they're a small part of the larger picture here.

Welcome to the forum btw.

I admit that I haven't read all the posts on this thread...
The "winged beings" picture that you posted looks Sumarian to me. Anywho, that's beside the point. No one really knows how or when all the dinosaurs died out. Orthodox science thinks they know everything there is to know about everything. I say - horse hockey!!! We have no idea what we don't know. Makes sense to me.

Looks like a giraffe to me.

Ahem nice speech, but that has nothing to do with the fact that there are no dinosaurs in that picture. I also notice Ashley never responded to the comments...

A thousand cups of weak coffee will not make a single cup of strong coffee.

You can bring out ancient pottery with giraffes on it and claim they are brontos (kept as pets, apparently. Both are leashed). You can bring out articles concerning dinosaurs and claim them as credible, ignoring that another article in the exact same website features Stephen Hawkins wearing his brand new Exo-Suit and putting together a cybernetic crime fighting team (no joke). You can keep as much a count of all these little tidbits you want, but seeing as you are unable to defend any of them in any credible or logical manner, you ultimately end up with nothing more than a pile of faulty evidence to support a faulty premise.

Or lions with really long necks.

Its probably just a misconception of a real animal. Like a rhinoceros being mistaken for a unicorn.

Looks like a kitty with a serpent for a head and neck.

Wow, what a conversation!

I've always loved the Palette of Narmer, but I never considered the idea that anyone would look at it and see dinosaurs.

The two beasts in the picture are mythological creatures representing Upper and Lower Egypt. The carving commemorates Narmer's uniting the two into one country, though they remained hostile towards one another. That's the significance of the two creatures with their serpentine necks entertwined, baring their fangs at one another as their keepers hold them back to keep them from fighting.

And? The creatures STILL look like Brontosaurus and most of that mythology is guess work. Whether they saw them as representative of the two part of Egypt is irrelevant. Look at the SIZE OF THEM. They are cathing them by the neck from a height, indicating their extreme height. It's not JUST the long neck.

Actually they're called serpopards
and they're from sumeria originally
This cylinder seal is sumerian and dates from 3300bce thats at least two hundred years before narmer was born.
The depiction of them collared is unique though
they never appear like that anywhere else

No, they don't look like Brontosaurus. They have leonine bodies like giraffes, not the massive muscular bodies of sauropods. They have upright necks, like giraffes, not the nearly horizontal necks of the sauropods. The have flexible 'flicking' tails like giraffes, not massive, straight, counter-balancing tails like sauropods. They are barely two and a half times the size of their keepers, like giraffes, not 16 times their size, particularly significant when you consider how heavily the whole "world's largest land animal" plays into this. They 'neck', like giraffes, a physical impossibility for sauropods. How, other than the long necks (which is also a giraffe trait), do they look anything like a brontosaurus?

If you are proposing that a viable colony (approximately twenty non-related animals, at a minimum) of sauropods survived a full 65 million years longer than the most current direct evidence of them suggests, you are going to need something a bit more substantial than a pot with two animals commonly kept as pets by the rich of the time.

commonly kept as pets ?
you're joking right ?