When I came across a webpage about Mokele-Membe, I was intrigued and began looking into the whole living dinosaur topic and I now believe that many "dragons" that in the past thousand years have allegedly been sighted, hunted, and killed across the world, are infact Dinosaurs. When you look for it there is alot of actual evidence supporting this, the big one being engravings and paintings that depict what we now no to be Dinosuars, as normal animals like a dog or a cat, and these were carved in times that Fossils had not been discovered and the word dinosaur hadn't been invented. There were so many stories from ancient times of "dragons", but you have to look for them because historians instantly disregard anything with the word "dragon" in it as nonsense. I don't see why accounts of dragons should be disregarded like this just because its something that sounds unnatural.

I don't no If this has been discussed alot or something but I couldn't see any recent postings about this so yea...

Here is a link and If it sparks youre interst follow the next link which is a collection of evidence of dragons being dinosaurs.
http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/engraved.htm
http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/dinosaurhistory.htm

Basically, replace the word "dragon" with "dinosaur" and it seems to make sense alot of the time.

Also, I don't no about fossils and rocks and stuff, and Im not denying that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, but mayb some of the fossils discovered are fossils of farely recent times (thousands of years ago rather than millions) but scientists just automatically assume they are ancient.

Just a thought...

I too was fascinated by the Mokele Mbembe, and I have also read about the Sirrush. But these articles have now really spark my interest.

Nobody Cares... lol

I care it would put some people in to place to find out both Mokele-Membe and dragons existed at one time.

This certaibly never caught my eye before, but now that I look at it, it is quite intresting. Thanks for posting this KCalypso, great stuff.

True enough, people wouldn't have been aware that "dinosaurs" existed as we know them now, but that doesn't automatically negate any chance that they might have found fossils. It doesn't just prohibit them from discovering a dinosaur. In fact it would make sense that some Neolithic folks who came across incomplete fossils while shaping the land for farming (the Neolithic era being the landmark at which our ancestors learnt the art of crop cultivation) would be obviously freaked at seeing the bones, and get all paranoid that some big, ugly beastie was out to get them... Everything else was.

The dangerous thing about mentioning the Sirrush is that the Babylonians had a very rich mythology and religion. This extended, not only to fantastic creatures, but also to the gods they worshipped. No one ever sparks up an arguement that these gods had to exist, it only occurs with the animals. I wonder why? Why does the Sirrush definitely have to exist when it doesn't matter whether Marduk or Tiamat were real? In Greek mythology, we all accept that the Chimaera was just made up of 3 (sometimes 4) different animals. Why is the Sirrush any different?

People seem to just pick and choose what bits and pieces of popular culture they like and turn them into proof, and completely ignore the rest. A good example is that of the Book of Job in the Old Testament. Because we all know how much it prooves Satan is a bad guy! He does all this stuff to see if Job still has faith in God. One bad egg that man!... but wait... isn't Satan just carrying out the orders of God? Therefore, isn't it God that is masterminding the loss of Job's cattle, the rape of his daughters and the destruction of his house? This gets conveniently forgotten, for some reason... perhaps because if could put God in a less-favourable light?

RKD

Actually, no, replacing the word dragon with dinosaur doesn't make sense. If you actually studied these dragon legends most of them are intelligent creatures which often talk and are connected with religions.

Also, there has NEVER been a dragon bone discovered that could not be identified., and no dinosaur bone ever found is later than 65 MYA.

Yes it is interesting that people have reportedly seen often intelligent,giant winged reptiles in every human culture, but there is absoutely no evidence that these are normal flesh and blood animals. In fact, if they were, we would have to have found evidence of them by now.

If these people saw dragons, that is exactly what they were, dragons. Not dinoaurs. These dragons are supernatural creatures that serve Gods or are Gods themselves. They do not die so there are no dragon bones. It is one thing for thousands of people to see these creatures for thousands of years, but another thing to simply accept as gospel the claims that anyone ever killed one without the physical proof of doing so. If a knight ever killed a dragon, its body would be worth its weight in gold and preserved in churches, becasue many medieval churches had fossils and fake dragon parts. This is a fact.

So without a fragment of evidence that they are normal flesh and blood creatures, if dragons are real they can only be supernatural creatures that are seen, but do not die, or extra terrestrial creatures, that may also have solved the aging process and do not die, or took their remains with them, or completely destroyed the bodies of their deceased companiaons.

And yes, these creatures are still seen today, but never caught for the same reasons. They are either supernatural, extraterrestrial or imagination. There really is no other explanation that supports the lack of physical evidence of these creatures.

As far as I know though, not all dragons are seen as intelligent. The popular concept of all dragons being intelligent came from Tolkein, and later popularised in roleplay games like Dungeons and Dragons. In some legends dragons were merely animals. In British lore there were several cases of dragons that were not really intelligent. Sure there's the stories about dragons hordes and guarding young maidens, but I'm sure an animal would protect its home and boundaries regardless of what other objects were placed there. Many species collect items. Doesn't mean that all of them are intelligent. Nest-building is one of the most ancient and instinctive features of life. But if dragons were to be real, the supernatural explanation sounds more favourable to me. Definitely not more plausable, but more favourable nevertheless.

RKD

Scientists assume nothing. Ever heard of radiocarbon dating. Within archaeology it is considered an absolute dating technique.

Correct. Scientists obtain their opinion from carefully studied tests and observations, which may take days, it may take years... even decades. Whether they like the conclusion or not, they are trained to accept it until an even better conclusion surface. Scientists don't assume, that's the job of the non-scientist. In fact, you'd be surprised to find out that the non-scientist is generally more closed-minded than the scientist. The scientist can admit when he's wrong, and changes his theory to fit the evidence, where the non-scientist (or at least the more extreme ones- not to paint all with the same brush) change the evidence to fit their theory.

The sooner some people realise this, the easier and more peaceful life will be for one and all.

RKD

Not Tolkien, but the Anglo Saxon and Germanic legends which Tolkien imitated all stated the dragons were intelligent. Fafnir of the Siegfried legend talked, and the unnamed dragon in the Beowulf legend probably could have as well, if it were important to the story.

As improbable as it may seem to us, these Nordic dragons are also sometimes the offsping of otherwise very human-like Gods. And we see the same thing in Greek mythology, and Sumerian mythology. The seven headed sea-serpent Tiamat gave birth to a human-like God called Marduk, and Satan is often considered a dragon, but also one of the Sons of God in the book of Job. In fact, in the real Bible, dragons are the highest servants of God. though Christians have rather ineptly attempted to rewrite this out of the Bible. .

And lets face it, as far as all the virgin sacrifice stories go, the dragon has to be intelligent in order to make "deals" with the local kingdom to not harm anyone else if he gets his regulated supply of virgins. How would the dragon make these kinds of deals if it could not communicate with the Humans? And in what may be the oldest version of the St. George story, (becasue of its early Christian naivety), the dragon is not killed (because this George really is a Saintly, non-violent man of God, something later Christian forgot), and the dragon promises to never harm a Christian afterwards (suggesting is was probably okay to continue devouring pagan infidels, no doubt). And with Oriental and MesoAmerican dragons its the same thing, they are all intelligent, talking creatures, and curiously, are often credited with teaching humans technology.

The mere, "stupid beast" dragons are actually a very late addition to the human mythology. And if they were stupid beasts, that would have been killed off, and there would be plenty of remains still around to prove men had killed them, just as there are fossils and modified sea creatures passed off as real dragon artifacts in the Middle ages.

And then we have to accept that if these dragons are real, their flying ability must be regarded as supernatural or super-science. And any creature with the psychic energy to leviatate its own body, probably has never been slain by a puny human. But if a dragon happened to leave an area, the first human who realized this may have boasted that he drove the creature away (since there was no body to prove he killed it) and over the years, and tall tales tend to grow in size, later generations would believe the ancient hero killed the dragon, and that everyone back in those days actually saw it happen. And this is how dragon slaying legends may have began.

So people may see, but never catch Nessie, Mokele, Champ, and the other "dragons" that still live among us, because they can "beam up" anytime they feel like it.

Hmmm, good point Draconis, but one thing you said about the deal between dragons and villagers... you can do the same with a dog. I wouldn't call the domestic dog particularly intelligent. They can be trained, and can be trained to solve problems and to act accordingly to situations, but they won't do any of this off their own back. You can teach nearly any animal tricks (even cats!) and so the dragon could quite easily learn that it's getting a meal delivered to it every so often (probably as frequently as it needs to feed, especially if several villages are supplying the food), and not feel the need to go out and find food. Only when villages stopped providing would the dragon feel the need to forage, thus being "angered" for the lack of sacrifices. Remember, you can show genius in your hunting methods without showing intelligence, when driven by instinct.

RKD

Yeah, after a few weeks of thought, I TOTALLY agree with Draconic. It makes PERFECT sense to me now to think that dragons had spaceships and could beam up and down to planets in their quest to explore strange new worlds and to boldly go where no dragon had gone before. The stories we have about dragons nowadays all take place before the dragons instituted the Prime Directive, of course. Thats why we dont see them anymore. But once we discover warp technology, the dragons and unicorns will initiate first contact.

As for dragons having to be intelligent in order to broker deals to only be given virgin sacrifices: does that also mean that volcanos are intelligent? Because people tossed virgins in those, too. People place some sort of mythical purity on virginity because... well, I have NO idea why. Perhaps it IS because the dragons and volcanos told us to. Or perhaps its because we feel children are more pure than adults, and it is the last vestige of innocence to maintain virginity, and therefor a virgin makes a more pure and worthy sacrifice.

And why would having the "psychic energy" to levitate its body translate over to not being slayable by a puny human? Do they also have other "magical" abilities that make them immune to normal weaponry? I would assume that a real creature would have to make SOME kind of sense in terms of WHY it would do what it does. If they could levitate through psychic powers, WHY do they have wings? Is this psychic power an automatic function, like breathing or blinking? How do they just "float away" when they die so we never find a body?

It has taken me some time to realize that apparently it is impossible to come up with plausible explainations for improbable creatures without COMPLETELY going off the deep end by adding psychic powers and aliens and the like. I mean, since we are talking about something that doesnt exist anyway, why NOT give it the most fantastic, outlandish explaination anyway?

I think the pure virgin thing comes from the demonisation and shaming of sex by the Christians. well, the Roman Christians really. Before sex was seen in some religions almost akin to praying. It's also very healthy. So these "pure virgins" were untouched by the evil of sex. because our basic natural drives were evil... and yet the enlightened and morally correct peoples were happy to report of such barbaric acts. I suppose Conan is a good example, despite being a ficticous character. He's a man of the wild who shags his way round Hyboria and beyond, and all the inhabitants of the civilised towns and cities of the world look down on him as an inferior being, and then go back to their decadent practises of treating their women callously and stabbing their best friends and closest allies in the back. Conan is the ultimate good force because he is untainted by civilisation, only living for life itself... and uhhhh, that's... kinda like the whole "mindless savage" question... or something... But that's where the pure virgin thing comes from. Bloody stupid practise if you ask me!

RKD

I am afraid you are rather ignorantly intermingling the two different concepts.

1. Supernatural, as related to the worlds religions, but probably modified forms of native archosaurian fauna.

2. Aliens with superior scientific abilities of either ancient or even modern man, who have made our planet a vacation spot for at least the 5000 years dragons have been recorded in earth history.

You should also understand that Volanoes and dragons are two very different phenomena. A volcano may erupt whether or not it is "fed" virgins, dragons on the other hand, appear to be very reliable in keeping their word about not burning down kingdoms if the agreed upon number of virgins are delivered at the agreed upon time.

It may in fact, be the dragon preference for virgins, which is why ancient cultures may have assumed the non sentient volcanos also preferred this class of sacrifice.

You are also completely wrong about Unicorns. Whereas every ancient culture believed in dragons implicitly, and their appearances fill the historical records, unicorns, on the other hand were mythical creatures who people only believed were real by the appearance of narwhale horns which were believed to be derived from the unicorn.

As for dragon flight, levitation and propulsion are two different things. And while the relatively small wings of most dragons drawn from from life are too small to lift something as heavy as a dragon, they are perfectly adequate to propel a dragon who has already becom airborne through levitation.

As for puny humans slaying dragons, we are safe to assume this was never accomplished, as the lack of any dragon remains attest. This is further documented by the Bible's assurance that no weapon of iron or bronze could pierce the scales of a dragon. This need not be a "magical power" at all, as you so unscientifcally suggest, for any reptile large enough to swallow whole virgins would likely have keratin scales inpenetrable by pre-gunpowder technology. In fact, the dragon tendency to cease burning villages and demanding virgins coincides very closely with the invention of serviceable gun powder weapons. After this dragons are still seen, though no longer recorded as a nuisance species save for more remote places where gun powder technology was largely still unknown. Indeed, the last major reports of overt, daylight dragon predation occur in the Western Hemisphere just at the time of European contact.

I am surprised you are unable to comprehend some these things, but you are right about one thing. Except for a few gregarious, plublicity-seeking dragons who insist on making spectacles of themselves at certain touristic hotspots, most dragons do obey a kind of "prime directive" as you have correctly perceived. This is not so say however, that they are not responsible for the disappearance of tens of thousands of persons annually, which are often incorrectly attributed to alien abductions.

If you have gotten anything out of this lecture I hope it is that dragons are not dinosaurs that survived the KT extinction event. THAT would be a ridiculous fantasy unsupportable by any evidence.

I don't mean In every sense, I mean in some reports. Did you follow the links and see all the carvings and paintings of monsters that highly resemble some of the Dinosaurs as we now call them? I have added two pictures, the first is a battle between two long neked serpent like creatures, and there is another picture like this that I couldn't locate but will try to get again, but it depects the same long necked monsters entwined in battle. Look up the dinosaur Tanystropheus...

And the second picture clearly depcits a classic saurapod next to normal animals, and not only that, he saurapod has its neck not vertically up, but horizontal, and scientists have recently discovered that saurapods most likely held their necks horizontally! How did this dude no that?

Anyway I just think that this sortof thing can't be a coincidence, when there is so much more stuff like this if you look...

Yes, and you can also see similar creatures in every ancient depiection of Jonah being swallowed by a sea creature that looks just like a Plesiosaur.

But what you must understand, is that these creatures were reported by the hundreds in Western Europe, not in the congo. And if these are normal flesh and blood creatures, MILLIONS of them would have had to lived and died and left fossils in the past 65 millions years after the dinosuars died out.

So yes it is a mystery why every human culture reports seeing them. But without any physical evidence they can only be imagination, supernatural or extraterrestrial. Period.

Alright guys what I'm trying to say is the word "dragon" was used everywhere, translated or whatever, and most of them were firebreathing MYTHS. I agree with this. But If you were a villager and saw something larger than an elephant, with a long neck and head, and a long thick tail, would you not call it a dragon?

The point is not all dragons were the same. People labelled a monster a dragon because it was big and SCARY and unknown. Look at the difference between a chinese dragon and a western dragon...

If you saw a large snake, you'd probably call it a dragon too.

So the mountain gorilla, which was beleived to be a myth until 1902 when it was OFFICIALLY discovered because someone shot it and presented the corpse, is imagination? The giant squid, thought to be a myth is now considered a REAL species.

Thats my point, if you saw anything slightly reptilian and big you'd call it a dragon

By the way I have found the site I was looking for, this is VERY interesting check it out
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

You still don't get it. The mountain gorilla always lived in an out of the way place and only a tiny population. Dragons were reported burining down barns in England every year for hundreds of years. And similar stories all over the rest of the world for thousands of years.. They are in EVERY human culture yet not a single bone has ever been found. I think it is unusual too, and my dragon book attempts to explain it on the premise that they are what the bible says dragons are - supernatural creatures connected to human religion. If God is fake then dragons must be fake, unless they are extraterrestrial creatures. The lack of physical evidence proves they are one or the other, but the lack of physical evidence proves they cannot be dinosaurs that survived all over the world the past 65 nillion years without leaving so much as a toe nail to prove their existence.

All of those websites are written by Christians trying to prove a young earth creation. But they do not know enough about their own Bible to realize that these are heavenly creatures, and not prehistoric animals.

Both sides have some intresting things to them. But I still cannot yet choose which one is correct, but some of the things Draconic Chronicler says make sense. They may be supernatural creatures, but on the other hand...in the bible it says there are as many worlds as there are grains of sand on the beach. On some planet where their are life forms like us, dogs might be consider legends, and dragons or dragon-like creatures may be as common as a squirrel.

I understand that, but what YOU need to understand is what ive been saying this WHOLE TIME. What im trying to explain is the word Dragon means any beast unseen before and rare. Ok, lets assume that every dragon reported is a myth, go here, read this, and explain it.

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

You think aboriginies read the bible? No. But they have a picture of them killing a Pleisaur however you spell it. Explain all of those pictures

Actually that was probably your worst choice, because I understand that piece of artwork isn't very old at all, but based on "a legend". Therefore the modern aborigine who produced the artwork may have seen a plesiosaur in a book.

However, the long necked aquatic reptiles in ancient Greek, Roman and early Christian artwork are a different matter.

But if you accept the premise that they are supernatural, just because they are the created servants/destoryers of one theology, obviously only one theology can be authentic. So if a seraphim dragon of the God of the Hebraic Bible happens to fly to Australia, it will still be that creature even if the people there just call it a monster, giant flying lizard, or whatever.

Every monster reported in ancient culutres is NOT a dragon. The point is that cultures all over the world believe in a similar giant reptilian creature. They do not all call them a dragon, because this derived from the ancient Greek word "Drakon". Incidentally, when the ancient Jewish and Christians were translating the Bible from Hebrew to Greek, they translated Seraphim to Drakon. Most christians do not know this, and think a Seraphim is actually an angel.

Even if religion is fake, dragons could still be a real part of it. Imagine how far humans have advanced and evolved in the scant, past million years. Then understand that there have been winged reptilian lifeforms over 100 million years ago. If one of these species evolved into an intellligent creature that long ago, they could have survived the KT extinction, and still in the Cretacous, would be so developed that they could have perfected abilities we humans still do not understand. They may have now perfected a way to appear invisible to us today, save for in the water, or during certain weather conditions when people occasionally report huge cryptic animals.

Our ancient acncestors would have regarded such advanced creatures as Gods or servants of the Gods, exactly as many cultures have regarded dragons.

I'm so confused... Just so I no, can you tell me In a couple of sentances what your view is?
Cause it seems to be changing and I mean no disrespect its just that I am confused as to what your view is

I used to like Dinosaurs loads, I used to watch Jurassic Park all the time!

These was that picture of the Tibet Dragon, from the Plane, but even though I think that's been proven as not real, it still caused much excitement.

http://s8int.com/dino24.html


There is another picture I found of a Serpent/Dragon thing, also taken from a plane. Dunno what to think of it, apart from it's got some nice colors on it!

Sorry, but I have trouble with this phrase. So Seraphim was translated to Drakon in the Greek version aye? Then why wasn't it translated into another word for all the other versions? Why would Seraphs in the Greek edition differ from all the others in the World? Also Drakon, or Dracon, was an Athenian politician. The severity of laws he proposed gave rist to the term "Draconian", which is anaglogous to "Tyrannical". The Latin/Greek almost interchangability of the K and C still bugs me to this day. The dictionary states that Dragon was used as an archaic description of large snakes, which is another reason I'm not so sure about your implications towards "Seraphim" evidently being a spelling mistake (being Hebrew to begin with).





But then surely all dinosaurs would have had the chance to evolve into higher beings? If anything, the fast, active predators such as the dromaeosaurs would be better qualified to go onto the "next step" as it were? Pterasaurs were beginning to decline in the Cretaceous, being ousted by "true" birds, which were faster and better equiped at flying. Indeed, since birds themselves have been around much longer than humans, why aren't there any "higher" birds? Or amphibians? arachnids?

good Q, it would appear intelligence is NOT the end result of evolution...

It is not. The end result of evolution is being so perfectly evolved in your surroundings that you never have to evolve further. Intelligence is just a minor hiccup that can occur along the way.

then humans appear counter to evolution, we make our surroundings fit us, not the natural way of evolution at all...

Correct. Evolution is characterised by the environment shanging the individual (or species), and should be a struggle to keep up with it. That's why a lot of animals just now are in decline. Our planet is changing whether it's our fault or not, and it spells the doom for animals that have lived in completely stable niches like cheetahs (there are other reasons, but the previous stability of their habitat is a major factor).

but, the history of Earth shows extinction is also a natural part of evolution, something fills the voids eventually....

We are talking first century BC, when the Bible was being translated from Hebrew to Greek. Back then there were no other "versions", Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean world, and even Romans were not considered cultured if they did not know Greek. Alexandria was the center of learning and the Jewish scholars their used this language in favor of Hebrew.

Dracon was undoubtedly a nickname and not a given name at birth for the dictator, for reasons that should be apparent. There is no question that "Drakon" the terrifying reptile came before Drakon the dictator, for after all it was even a heavenly constellation known throughout the ancient world for centuries.

Drakons can be enormous snakes, but they are also more traditional, winged reptiles as some of the ancient poetry and myths confirm.

I am not implying it is a spelling mistake. Winged reptilian dragons were the servants to the ancient mesopotamian Gods, or were even the God's themselves, so it is natural these creatures would be in the Judaic theology. Christians have later turned them into winged humanoid "angels" based on pagan Greco-Roman demi-gods, but there can be no doubt that the early Christians recognized them by their original reptilian form (just as modern Israelis still use the word in Hebrew to mean a flying dragon), because not only was the word translated to Drakon in Greek, which became the language of the new Testament, but we also see these creatures depicted as dragons in ancient Christian religious art, often swallowing sinners in heavenly judgement scenes, surounding the throne of God exactly as the Hebrew Seraphim are described in Isaiah.

The seraph dragons had been written out of Christian theology by the later middle ages, when it was difficult for the Church to explain to the peasant congregations that Satan was a bad dragon but that other dragons were "good". This is when they are turned into winged humanoid angels. But we still find them as dragons in the ancient Christian art and scriptures before the bible was "changed" to comply with an ever changing culture.


You are right, a dromaoesaur like Trodoon seems a better candidate for advanced intelligence in an archosaur species than pterosaurs, but merely trying to come up with a plausible explanation for the world-wide belief in intelligent winged "dragons".

Perhaps it does have something to do with an intelligent creator, why the most intelligent primates did not stop at Chimps as it certainly could have. If humans were a slightly "improved" lifeform brought about by a creator entity, so too, could have been some kind of reptilan servant creature, millions of years earlier, also connected with the same theology, but recognized by every human culture as the mythic animal generally known as a "dragon" today.

Here's some info i posted about dragons. I believe that the existence of dragons is very possible.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...2Bdragon+beetle

The inherent flaw in your logic, Draconic, is one that you used to point out a discrepancy in someone elses argument, ie...



So the "legend" the aborigine based his drawing off of was rubbish, but the "legend" you are drawing your facts from (the Bible) is true?



So if we accept the premise that one theology's belief is supernatural, and that "fact" somehow proves that only that theology is authentic, why isnt there actually a scarab that pushes the sun across the sky every day? Why dont lightning bolts actually come from some bearded fella in a toga on the top of a mountain? Just because everyone knows that the sun rises and sets, or that lightining hits the earth, why is ONE explaination more realistic than the others?



So these super advanced dragons, over the course of hundreds of millions of years, evolved into the creatures that you now claim to exist. YET, you say that there are no remains at all to be found BECAUSE they are super advanced... Didnt they have to advance from something? And wouldnt those "pre-advanced" forms leave remains that their more evolved relatives somehow managed to...NOT leave? For these creatures to evolve, they would have to go through MANY changes, and there just arent any forms that are anything NEAR what a dragon would be like. Certainly you arent suggesting that one day, a whole batch of eggs was VASTLY different than all of the parent forms, so much so that they were in fact a whole new species. Or perhaps you are suggesting that these super advanced dragonoids, as a part of their evolution, developed the ability and the desire to hide all aspects of their existence, including any precursor evolutionary forms.



So they can become invisible, except for in the water, or on clear days, or on some foggy days, or when someone happens to have a camera with them... Um, if they were as super advanced as you say, having somehow figured out: psionic levitation, invisibility, vocal capabilities recognizable to humans, languages used by humans, the discerning taste for virgin flesh over all other types, the diplomatic skills needed to broker deals with humankind, and STILL had to be in the water sometimes, they couldn't figure out a way to make themselves invisible while they swam around? I mean, we are talking about a species that has had HUNDREDS of millions of years of evolution AFTER already attaining a point that they figured out not to leave any trace of themselves before or after the KT event. Did they just hit a peak right before not being seen with their floaties on in some Loch somewhere?

As for your very astute observation about volcanos not being sentient: very good. You DID catch that point. Now for the meaning implied therein. To infer from the "fact" that dragons were sacrificed virgins BECAUSE dragons asked for virgins is ludicrous. Virgins were sacrificed as part of many different religious ceremonies, and very different cultural beliefs. Are we to assume that dragons somehow went to ALL of these cultures at one point and asked for virgins? And these impositions made SUCH an impact to all of these different cultures in their asking that from the point of draconic interaction onward they decided "hey, if it was good enough for the dragons, its good enough for (fill in the blank. In my example, it was volcanos)"?

Some of your ideas make sense, if you ignore most of the logic it would take to build a foundation for the ideas themselves. And you cant really use the bible as a source, unless you are trying to make a theological argument, not a scientific one. If you are trying to prove the existence of dragons as a religious symbol, then you are doing a decent job. But if your theories are based entirely on " x+y+z (where x= the unknown, y= the unproven, and z=conjecture based on research of a book Ive decided was an accurate source) = Fact" then they fall way short of believability, or even the time it would take for serious consideration.

I didn't say the aborigine account was "rubbish", in fact I even suggested the creature could have been the same winged dragons that seem to have visited every human culture.
What I said was that a MODERN illustration of a "dragon" would be less reliable than an ancient rendition when these creatures were reportedly seen.

Understand that new species of prehistoric life are discovered with almost with monthly regularity. We may well discover the percursors to dragons, whether they have a theologically assisted or entirely biological origin. If they have an extraterrestrial origin, then we shall not be as lucky, unless someday we find evidence of their spacecraft, or if any of them ever did die here, their DNA might reveal they are not of this world.

If we accept a non-theological origin, these creatures had much longer than man to evolve into a highly intelligent lifeform with possible psychic abilities even before the KT event. Primate fossils are relatively rare because these creatures are often too intelligent to get trapped in tarpits and the like. If they do die, and had religious customs of their own to dispose of their dead, like cremation, they would leave no fossil evidence. This suggests that while many humans invented myths that they killed dragons, none may have ever been killed. But these myths were popular becasue everyone in those times did indeed see and feared the dragons.

Actually, there is no reason to doubt that the sacrifices of virgins to dragons predate every other type of virgin sacrifice, and could have in fact, been the basis for later virgin sacrifices. Or perhaps, becasue of international trade even in the stone age, people reported the merits of sacrificing virgins to dragons, and in some Polynesian backwater no self-respecting dragon would bother with, fire spewing volcanos became the surrogate for fire spewing dragons.

And whether the dragons have either a spiritual, or super intelligent secular/extraterrestrial origin, either scenario suggests all of these dragons were in contact with one another, and therefore it may have been "decided" to ask for "virgin" sacrifices, to assume a spirtiual significance to the event instead of simply conniving for a a "free meal". We also cannnot dismiss the possibilitiy that there may also be a sexual connection to these requests. Accounts of Dragons raping women do occur in the historical record, though the notion that these unions produced "Sons of God" like Alexander the Great and Jesus are probably groundless based on biological realities.

People "reportedly" saw giants, and had the bones to prove it; it was later found that they were misinterpreting elephant bones to be cyclops, and NO ONE actually saw it alive in the first place. People "reportedly" saw unicorns, yet there is no evidence of those being real. People "reportedly" saw pixies, mermaids, leprachauns, etc., yet no evidence of their existence outside of unsubstantiated story exists, either. And yet, because a story about dragons was prevalant, or traveled around with the nomadic early man and his primitive understanding of his surrounding world, these "dragon-tales" are somehow above all the others?



Correct, we do find new species almost monthly. And you seem to understand the basic theory of evolution; that being that there need to be millions of members of a species over a long amount of time slowly changing into the newer, more evolved form. But we havent found ANYTHING like what a dragon may have evolved from. Unless you are saying that they evolved from dinosaurs, in which case, why havent we found any of the stages between dinosaurs and dragons? A pterasaur cant just one day lay a clutch of eggs that hatch into psychic dragons. A whole lot of "non-psychic" non-dragons have to come before the first "psychic" non-dragon appears, and then a whole lot of them have to be around before the first psychic actual-dragon appears. Did the dragons have the foresight to go back and erase themselves from fossil history without damaging the integrety of all of the other fossil records? As for alien origins, you may as well say "a wizard did it".




No reason to doubt? Thats a very bold statement made on very insubstantial footing. Not to argue semantics, but for something this based in fantasy and conjecture, a more accurate (although still illogical and highly improbable) statement would be "for all of the other reasons, why not throw this one in there too?" And as for the vast free market economy that you claim the primitive humans had, how did they get out to those Polonesian one-horse backwaters? Did the primitive humans, who had yet to figure out the wheel, somehow manage to figure out trans-oceanic travel and the dragons did not? And if so, why did THEY think it was viable to head out to these podunk islands, but the dragons did not? And why, if these people were sophisticated enough to accomplish all of this, would they transfer the existence of dragons to the explaination of volcanos? Surely if you travel hundreds of miles on a few logs strapped together, and manage to find an island out there with a civilization on it, you arent just gonna unload your gear and head back out again. You'll probably stick around and rest for a while; maybe even tell a story about a fire breathing dragon, i guess. And if, in telling your story about a fire spewing dragon, someone says "hey, that mountain spews fire. is THAT what your talking about?", and you HAD actually seen a dragon, wouldnt you be quick to correct them lest you look like the fool? I mean, these ARE just backwater natives, after all.



Would it be safe to assume that dragons, if supernatural, superintelligent or extraterrestrial, are as advanced to us as we are to cows? Do we go to cows and ask them for virgin calfs? Why, if they are so much more advanced than we, and for so much longer, would they take the time to learn our language and culture so they could pick off a couple of people every month or so? How many dragons can one 14 year old girl feed, and for how long? For there to be enough dragons to be a viable species, or for so many people to encounter them, they would have been eating a LOT of virgins. And why bother to be seen in some "spiritual significance" (again, why bother to learn the religious customs of your cattle?) if these primitive hairless monkeys possess NO technology that can possibly negate the dragons attempt to just take what they want?
Also, why cant we dismiss the possibility of sexual connotation? If interspecies reproduction is impossible, then they obviously were only doing it for pleasure. Why would a dragon, if it were truely so advanced (yet still so primitive as to practice beastiality) care if it had a virgin human or not?

It is ironic that you would use a phrase like

when your entire theory is based entirely outside of those realities. You are attempting to build a house of cards over quicksand on a windy day with this hypothesis of yours. You site "factual sources" like the bible, and ancient texts written by primitive people far less knowledgable in the science of their surrounding world, and combine it with far fetched notions about extraterestrial or theological origins to produce "conjecture^2". With all due respect, if one is to pull something completely from between their nethercheeks, would they not have to at least eat some facts first before producing that load? What facts are you using to produce this new fact, other than what someone else has made up before you?

eh i agree with that other dude
someone probably found a dinosaur fossil and thought they might be dragons out to kill them
or they just saw lizards and opened themselves to the possibility of giant lizards

This topic is getting intense. Basically, I believe that dinosaur like creatures might be around but be vary very rare. You guys are doing the longest posts lol

SHAD: People "reportedly" saw giants, and had the bones to prove it; it was later found that they were misinterpreting elephant bones to be cyclops, and NO ONE actually saw it alive in the first place. People "reportedly" saw unicorns, yet there is no evidence of those being real. People "reportedly" saw pixies, mermaids, leprachauns, etc., yet no evidence of their existence outside of unsubstantiated story exists, either. And yet, because a story about dragons was prevalant, or traveled around with the nomadic early man and his primitive understanding of his surrounding world, these "dragon-tales" are somehow above all the others?

DRAC: Unlike every other creature you mentioned, similar dragons appear in virtually every Human culture. Plus their similarity to real, giant reptiles gives them far more reality than leprauchans or mermaids. And then for the billions who believe in religion and spirituality,dragns are an intregal part of virtually every human belief system. Also dragons are reported more matter of factly as real creatures, constantly stealing animals and burning things in Medieval reports. They appeared as normal animals in scientific texts through the 17th century, when NONE of the other creatures you mentined would.

SHAD:Correct, we do find new species almost monthly. And you seem to understand the basic theory of evolution; that being that there need to be millions of members of a species over a long amount of time slowly changing into the newer, more evolved form. But we havent found ANYTHING like what a dragon may have evolved from. Unless you are saying that they evolved from dinosaurs, in which case, why havent we found any of the stages between dinosaurs and dragons? A pterasaur cant just one day lay a clutch of eggs that hatch into psychic dragons. A whole lot of "non-psychic" non-dragons have to come before the first "psychic" non-dragon appears, and then a whole lot of them have to be around before the first psychic actual-dragon appears. Did the dragons have the foresight to go back and erase themselves from fossil history without damaging the integrety of all of the other fossil records? As for alien origins, you may as well say "a wizard did it".

DRAC: When we discover one new type of dinosaur, it means there should be evidence of its earlier evolution, etc, but very often we do not find it becasue of the paucity of the fossil records. We have not yet found more primative Tyrannosaurs yet, although they must have existed (actually there may be one now, but still in a block of stone in Utah.) If the Dragon ancestor appeared in the Triassic, by the Cretaceous it could have evolved into a highly intelligent creature, but being a perfect predator, had no need to make tools as primitive man needed. More intelligent creatures rarely become fossilized compared to dumb animals that walk into quicksand and tar pits.

SHAD:No reason to doubt? Thats a very bold statement made on very insubstantial footing. Not to argue semantics, but for something this based in fantasy and conjecture, a more accurate (although still illogical and highly improbable) statement would be "for all of the other reasons, why not throw this one in there too?" And as for the vast free market economy that you claim the primitive humans had, how did they get out to those Polonesian one-horse backwaters? Did the primitive humans, who had yet to figure out the wheel, somehow manage to figure out trans-oceanic travel and the dragons did not? And if so, why did THEY think it was viable to head out to these podunk islands, but the dragons did not? And why, if these people were sophisticated enough to accomplish all of this, would they transfer the existence of dragons to the explaination of volcanos? Surely if you travel hundreds of miles on a few logs strapped together, and manage to find an island out there with a civilization on it, you arent just gonna unload your gear and head back out again. You'll probably stick around and rest for a while; maybe even tell a story about a fire breathing dragon, i guess. And if, in telling your story about a fire spewing dragon, someone says "hey, that mountain spews fire. is THAT what your talking about?", and you HAD actually seen a dragon, wouldnt you be quick to correct them lest you look like the fool? I mean, these ARE just backwater natives, after all.

DRAC: Yes you are right. If the Polynesians had no "Dragon Gods" to please out in some God Forsaken islands no dragon cared to visit, they might think feeding virgins to a flaming volcano mouth instead of a flaming dragon might be a good surogate to insure a good rainy season or whatever. But we know from the archaeological record that stone age man traded goods that originated thousands of miles away.

SHAD: Would it be safe to assume that dragons, if supernatural, superintelligent or extraterrestrial, are as advanced to us as we are to cows? Do we go to cows and ask them for virgin calfs? Why, if they are so much more advanced than we, and for so much longer, would they take the time to learn our language and culture so they could pick off a couple of people every month or so?

DRAC: Actually they seem to be fascinated by humans and are technology. This is why they collecting human artifacts. And some apparently like to help the humans rather than simply eat them as we see from many cultures.

SHAD: How many dragons can one 14 year old girl feed, and for how long? For there to be enough dragons to be a viable species, or for so many people to encounter them, they would have been eating a LOT of virgins. And why bother to be seen in some "spiritual significance" (again, why bother to learn the religious customs of your cattle?) if these primitive hairless monkeys possess NO technology that can possibly negate the dragons attempt to just take what they want?

DRAC: We cannot base all of our assumptions of the very latest legends. It may have been more common for dragons to ask for a dozen virgins at a time, but this becomes a plot complication in the later stories which we know cannot be true because the puny human defeats the dragon. As stated above, dragons seem to be faccinated with human customs and technology and chose to interact with them, instead of exterminate them. Though intelligent, dragons do not seem to be able to make objects, so admired and collected human ones.

But if the dragons are servants/"pets" of a higher God as the Judao-Christian theology originally presented, they could only harm or help those humans whom the God ordained.


SHAD Also, why cant we dismiss the possibility of sexual connotation? If interspecies reproduction is impossible, then they obviously were only doing it for pleasure. Why would a dragon, if it were truely so advanced (yet still so primitive as to practice beastiality) care if it had a virgin human or not?

DRAC: You cannot put human values in a completlely alien species. Even among humans we have some cultures that are appalled by other "civilized" humans. Like the western outrage of the Japanese love of slaughtering intelligent marine mammals for profit.

The whole virgin thing might not be so sexual as it was a demonstration of a human clan's fidelity to a dragon "protector".

SHAD:It is ironic that you would use a phrase like

when your entire theory is based entirely outside of those realities. You are attempting to build a house of cards over quicksand on a windy day with this hypothesis of yours. You site "factual sources" like the bible, and ancient texts written by primitive people far less knowledgable in the science of their surrounding world, and combine it with far fetched notions about extraterestrial or theological origins to produce "conjecture^2". With all due respect, if one is to pull something completely from between their nethercheeks, would they not have to at least eat some facts first before producing that load? What facts are you using to produce this new fact, other than what someone else has made up before you?

DRAC: This study is primarily directed to the billion or more people who believe the Bible is inspired, and if so, there must be a logical reason why dragons appear in nearly every human culture and also happen to be the highest of heavenly servants.

People who have read the manuscript already find that the book very neatly answers all of the questions, and explains everything about dragons if one accepts the basic premise of the Judao Christian/Muslim God, and also a real world that is billlions of years old.

But if there is no God, intelligent dragons could still be plausible, and may likely have assisted in the creation of our religions, since they appear in nearly all of them, and would likely benefit such creatures.

I am glad we had this discussion because I now see that I need to add an additional chapter to address this "alternative history", which will probably seem more believable to some people.

I love to read this thread...but I'm afraid we've strayed too far from the topic...

I dont see anything in this photo,unless you mean that dark blob in the upper right.The other just looks like dust from an avalanche.

BTW,Draconic,the Bible is not a very reliable source of facts,but it is true that many different religions had dragon stories.But how many of those stories did you research,as you have only stated the Bible so far.

Great topic...love it

REPTILES: dragons dinos, snakes, lizzards, hell even shapeshifting reptoids.

Theres no two ways about it people reptiles have played a MASSIVE part of earth history.
Almost every single ancient culture and or country in history worshipped the reptiles in one way/form or another.
They were around before us and they'll be still runn'n around when we're all dead and gone.

Keep it roll'n.

I study all of them, to find common threads. But I must concede the Biblical conception of dragons are the most accurate, because this theology offers the only creation epic which is compatible with modern scientific concepts such as evolution, as many noteworthy scientists have stated.

Also the theoology suggests "dragons" are the oldest of heavenly creatures, suggesting their development millions of years before humans and therefore, the humanoid type angels. This suggest a connections with dinosaurs or pterosaurs, also implying an understanding of earth history, unknown by other religions.

But in some cases, non-biblical legends must be given more credence. For example, the earliest Garden of Eden account, was written down in Sumeria some 1500 years before the Hebrews finally wrote their version of the same thing, but somewhat distorted after shepherds repeated it as an oral traditon for so long.

The Sumerian version is far more realistic, and the dragon who guards the tree is actually "good", and tries to help Adape (Adam).

The picture's an atmospheric effect called a 'rainbow cloud,' or some such. It's not paranormal at all.

plus this one is drawn with a computer program.

Ah.