In Africa, they are called Kongomato (see below - William M. Rebsamen art from Cryptozoology A to Z and a mysterious photograph of one that has surfaced on the internet). In New Guinea, they are named Ropen. Some would have us consider if there are pterosaurs among us still today.

Found here: Ropen

I'm pretty sure we really would notice pterosaurs if the still existed, for a start the could not hide in trees due to there size and the fragile nature of there wing membranes. Also it is really hard to miss a large flying reptile.

You are right, to a certain extent. The Pterosaur sightings of 1967 - 1979 could be falsefied, but the Kongamoto and the Ropen could be truth. Africa and Papua New Guinea have large forests, so a giant reptile such as a pterodactyl or a brontosaurus could easily hide.

Pteradons could not live in forests. There wing membrane is to fragile to live in such an environment at there size. Brontosaurs would also be too big to live in a forest. Theere mass is too big to be able to live in such an area. If they had been in New Guinea, they would also be found in the tropical froests of northern Australia which were connected for a very long time (hence New Guinea has its own species of Kangeroo). There is now chance.

Yes, but the climate fits there needs. And, they may not be the creatures we are used to hearing about in science class. They could have adapted.

Looks more like a Stealth Bomber to me.

To be honest though, I wouldn't be surprised if there are still dinosaurs alive in the wild. However, this information would be HEAVILY surpressed by western culture, otherwise the evolutionary system of population control would collapse.

They climate may (except for the very different atmosphere) but the forests would not that is the most important point. Also these were Jurassic animals, there is no evidence of there survival into the cretaceous.

It would not be supressed at all, science is about building infomation and it would not affect evolution, otherwise the survival of the tuatura would have had the same effect.

There are four species of flying reptile: Pterodon, Pterodactyl, Quetzacotal, and Pterosaur.

The Pterodons and Quetzacoatl existed at the end of the Jurassic. Pterodactyls and Pterosaurs existed during the Cretaceous.

Your phylogeny is all wrong there as are your times, there where far more than 4 species of flying reptile, but never mind. The pterasuars (which is the name that represents all the flying reptiles) were in decline during the cretaceous and the peaked in diversity during the Jurrasic. How ever none where forest dwwlling because there wing membrane would not have allowed them to do this because the the dense branchs would destroy the membrane, they also could never land there.
Wikipedia Pterasaur page

OOPS!!!

as I can remember the pterosaurs lived close to sea, and as said before, they are so big they have should been discovered already. hard to miss such a big bird

When I was in Sri Lanka I stayed at a hotel by a large lake for a few days. Every evening at sunset elephants would come out of the forest to drink from the lake. It was the strangest thing. After they finished drinking they would disapear back into the forest. We took a jeep (actually some time of range rover we don't have in the states) and went out to look for elephants one day. The few that we did see out in the open would promply run a full speed right into the forest and vanish. I never thought something the size of an elephant could vanish so easily in the forest

Elephants are much smaller than large sauropods.
Brontosaurs where open plains animal, a forest existance for them would be impossible, they wouldn't be able to move with out make a new open plain.

I will still debate you.

A dinosaur can live in African jungles. Roy P. Mackal has said it, Jerome Clarke has sad it, Loren Coleman has said it.

Unless, according to very stupid people, these living dinosaurs are from another dimension, and they dissapear when things get too "risky."

Agreed, maybe a dwarf bronto?? You know, like Dino

It has been suggested by Roy P. Mackal that the Congolese monster, mokele-mbembe, may be a baby sauropod.

I said SAUROPODS can't and pterasaurs are not dinosaurs.

There is no evidence of any living in the Congo, in fact the one myth about a cryptid there turned out to be a rhino.

I could also suggest that my cat is a baby tiger but that does not make it true.

mokele-membe, emeli-noutaka, kongamoto.

THREE extinct reptilian creatures in Africa. Books have been written about a lost world in the African contitent about dinosaurs that eluded a time warp, and got stuck in our time. Primitive beings have "written" (cave drawings) about dinosaurs and humans co-existing. If they were'nt there, then there would no recorded documents to prove it.

Watch the BBC documentary Congo, they talked about them and when they asked them to try and identify it using a wildlife book, they pointed to the rhino.
Those drawings prove nothing. There is no evidence to show humans and dinosaurs co-existing at all.

Time warp. Seriously.

If I recall correctly, this photo was analyzed, and proven to be a goose.

There are cryptids which COULD be examples of surviving pterosaurs. But I'm afriad this photo doesn't prove that.

Your entire argument ignores progressive evolutionary change. If sauropods took to the jungle and found an evolutionary niche which allowed them to survive, then they would adapt, both in size and habits. The same can be said of Pteradons descendants or any small relic population of flying lizard. Like any modern animal, descendants of animals known in the Jurassic would not be carbon copies of the originating species. They would continue to adapt as part of the evolutionary chain.

No he gave specific examples, I said those specific examples do not exist now and I gave the reasons. There is no evidence of any dinosaur existing anymore however. But the dinosaurs did evolve into other things that we still have........ birds and crocodiles.

This argument ignores the fact that there would be fossil evidence of such a transition of sauropods or pteradons into modern forms, of which there is none. Millions of years of fossils show no evidence. Also, there is no place on this planet that could hold breeding populations of such large creatures and not be detected by scientists today.

I am not trying to defend the existence of a breading colony of large Dino's still existing but do you have any idea of how many places on this planet have not yet been investigated by man?

The Congo is a prime example.

You see, there's absolutely no reason for such an evolutionary change. Why on earth would a sauropod suddenly decide to take to cramped forests? Of course they'd have to be the standard size to begin with, so really I can't see any incentive to move to a completely different ecosystem for no reason at all. Let's look at the possibilities:

1- to escape predation? Sure enough hatchling and juvenile sauropods could have taken refuge in forests, but larger individuals (say from about 4-5 foot long) would, in this day and age, certainly be well equipped to live in the open without any problems. Probably.

2- food? Why would they bother risking looking for another foood source? Unless their own food sources were being depleted... but it's a bit of a risk going into a forest in the hope of maybe fidning food when you can't fit between the trees. Surely these things would be a bigger source of deforestation than us.

3- to be miserable and uncomfortable while pre-emptively deciding to make cryptozoologists argue over their existence.

Really those are the only real reasons. Remember that evo isn't a pre-empted thing. People seem to think that animals adapt and shape themselves to suit the environment, but in fact the environment shapes the animal. It's adapted BY the environment. Animals don't generally just wander off into a new ecosystem. And of course this would have to happen to the pioneers who first decided to migrate. Unless they conformed to the general terrestrial trend to shrink in size... but I'm still sure they'd be p-retty big iffen they were still alive today.

Recent fossil evidence has shown that some dinos' seem to have had feathers, creating a possible link between them and modern birds.

The argument that these dinos' might have evolved to find a niche is a little wishy washy, only because if they did evolve, they may be unrecognizable as such by now. Maybe the rhino is actually a descendent of a lizard-like dino. I don't think we have the ability to make that determination yet though.

If there are any really pre-historic dino-type critters out there, I bet they will be found in the ocean. I think large land animals would have been found by now. Makes the case for bigfoot sound pretty bleak too.

Very few, if any actually. Now if you mean, are people walking around everyplace on the planet everyday, then no, but the human animal has been everywhere they could get food. In modern times there have been many expeditions into the Congo starting in the late 1800s. Obviously the Congo is huge, and I don't mean to say close to every bit has been walked on but it's been explored more than enough to put to rest any ideas about huge unknown animals living there. There's no place left on earth that is so unexplored that it could support a rhino or larger size creature without us having found it yet (on land).

You don't get out much do you??? the majority of the Congo is still unexplored, yes I agree there are locals that live there but they stick to the river system for obvious reasons.

I have spent a long time there and have come across massive lakes and mountain ranges that were not even mapped and the Congo is just one example of one area untouched by the western world.

that "ropens photo" was already shown to be dirt on the winshield of the car that the pic was taken in. the one this thread is showing is re-cropped to cut off all other parts of the window frame for reference. why bother posting crap like that here?

Actually, I've been around, thanks. The jungles of Costa Rica, Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia for tropical climates, backpacking in all instances as well as much of Europe but that doesn't have much to do with our discussion. Note any large animal would be tied to the river systems as well.



Next time you go, bring one of the many thousands of maps that exist for the congo region.
http://www.monuc.org/downloads/Shaded%20map%20of%20DRC.pdf
You'll note the thousands of villages almost all within 50kms of each other.
http://www.monuc.org/Documents.aspx?lang=e...pened=Resources
http://www.cartographic.com/hub/index.asp?...&Click.y=77
There's no part of this planet that hasn't been satellite imaged and had topos made of it.

Backpacking.. oh yes Costa Rica, Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia... package holidays in comparison..... I bet you spent months in the Jungle living off the land, also Large animals are not tied to the river systems.

As for the Maps.. I had the most recent up to date ones to hand.... Do you actually believe this planet has been accurately mapped and that satellites can map an area so close that they can actually check there are no large animals living there.

On one tour we headed north on the unexplored Bai River and made our way northwest through dense swamps where we found 3 lakes that were not even documented on any maps. It felt very much like I had stepped back in time, This trip is a bit above backpacking or Google Earth.

May I add to this?

If there were some type of mountain, or something similar, nearby the area where these flying creatures (note, I'm saying "creatures" and not pterosaurs as I am unsure as to whether or not these would be bats/mammals or reptiles/dinos) lived in. When not searching for it's prey/food it could roost there. Accounting for odd sightings in the nearby mountains (if any sightings) or perhaps hiding the creatures from existence since humans seem to find it quite tough to climb mountains to a certain altitude.

Eh?

Actually, Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia were six months of Buddhist sojourn, by myself, living primarily off of rice and the kindness of villagers, sleeping in the jungle with $500US and limited bus travel. Before that I spent fives years as a mountain porter in the Sierras, not the Congo granted, but my travels were not package holidays by any means. This need not be a pissing contest about whose spent more time outdoors with minimal supplies.

As far as large animals being tied to river systems, this is absolutely the case in river basin jungle environs.



I never said anything about satellites finding large animals, though the technology is easily capable of such resolutions, it would never be used for such a task. I stated that the land masses of this world have been topographically mapped via satellite and that's true and provided ample proof of it. The point of the maps were to show how relatively inhabited the area is and how well documented it is. Living sauropods would have been found by now as a sustainable breeding population would inhabit thousands of square kilometers and would cross villagers paths regularly.



Again, we obviously have different ideas of what backpacking is. I'm not talking about a european hitchhiking holiday. Anyhow, I have no doubt you found undocumented lakes and I also have no doubt that there are thousands of undocumented lakes in central Africa, the point is there is enough human habitation close enough together to preclude the idea of a breeding population of massive animals sauntering about unseen. BTW, I would love to go to the Congo River Basin myself.

It is not just recent dinosaurs are known to be very much related to crocodiles, which are diapsids like birds and dinosaurs.
The Rhino is related to horses not dinosaurs. This is very much shown through molecular data and the fact that the RHINO IS A MAMMAL!

But the mainstream evolutionary beliefs states that man and dinosaur have never existed together, does it not? Wouldn't the existance of a modern day dinosaur force some of the theory to be re-evaluated?

That is not mainstream evolutionary theory, that is because there is absolutely no evidence of any dinosaurs in any sediemtns post the K-T boundary that is why science says there are no dinosaurs anymore (unless you want to count birds).
If you know science it always under review, science is about building and re-evaluating to increase our knowledge, you could say it is always evolving.

We find them if anyone traversed the mountain though, they'd leave physical evidence.
No physical evidence, no animal.

Paluxy Tracks

They have not stood up to scientific scrutiny and the possibilty of them being human has even been abandoned by most creationist groups as with many similar tracks, elongated metatarsals from many different dinosaur species are capable of making such tracks.
There is a paper in 1987 in the Journal of Geological Education called "New observations on Paluxy tracks confirm their dinosaurian origin" but it is not available online.

dino/human connection

That is not a reputable source, the one I have mentioned is. Sorry, that is religous propaganda.

I agree, for one thing the figurines that are mentioned in this article and many other are fake:
Wiki
"Circumstances of the Figure’s “Excavation”

The very circumstances from which the figures first appeared are dubious. Julsrud claims that he paid the farmers for every figure they brought him. This alone gives the farmers motive to create their own figures and disguise them as ancient artifacts.

Condition of the Figures and the Excavation

According to DiPeso, the surface of the figures was practically brand new. They showed no characteristic evidence of having been in the ground for at least 1500 years. If they were authentic artifacts, they would be scratched and marred from the rocky soil, which is characteristic of artifacts found in that area of Mexico. Also, these were apparently inexperienced people digging up these artifacts. DiPeso mentioned that he saw them actually crush through authentic artifacts to reach the figures, yet none of the figures uncovered displayed any such marks. Other evidence includes fresh manure found under the ground, fingerprints found under the ground, and black fill from other strata was discovered in sterile red earth, which points to previous tampering with the site.[9]

The Number of Figures and their Condition

The sheer number of perfect figures found is evidence for a hoax. Over 32,000 figures were found, and all of them in perfect condition except for a few that were cleanly broken, obviously to create the illusion of antiquity. If these were authentic antiquities, they would not be preserved with such perfection in such an inhospitable environment. Pottery is almost always uncovered as fragments called sherds; nowhere has 32,000 unblemished ceramics been uncovered with none of them in fragments and all of them in perfect condition(cleanly broken in two does not count as fragments)."

Journal Article 1
It may not let you access it but the abstract at the bottom basically states the most relevant point.
Journal Article 2
"Thus the investigation ended; it seems almost super- fluous to state that Acambaro
figurines are not prehis- toric nor were they made by a prehistoric race "

I've also seen the drawings the article refers to and to me those dinosaurs, if at all visible without straining your eye, could be anything you want them to be.

As for the reputability of this source, direct quote:

"How can a mere 150-pound man teach a 10,000-pound whale to jump hurdles, ring bells, and perform other tricks—without being harmed? The answer is found in the fact that God made man in His own image, and gave him the ability to have dominance over the lower creation. As early as Genesis chapter one we read:" etcetc

he uses this as an argument for the possible existence of dinosaurs, saying people might have been 'friends' with them as orcas are with their trainers in $eaworld and therefore could have coexisted without fearing the dinosaurs. Apart from the fact that that is in fact religious propaganda as Mattshark has said he also proves he does not know what he is talking about, suggesting he probably does not know what he is talking about in the rest of the article either and completely lacks background knowledge about the subjects he is on about. Orcas at $$$eaworld do not do what their trainers tell them because god gave them the dominion over animals, they are doing it becasue they have been deprived of any mental stimulation other than interacting with their trainers, these are very social animals and will try to please in order to maintain the only mental stimulation they have, interaction with trainers. in the past this has also been done with food deprivation although this is allegedly not the case anymore.

I doubt that they could still exist,they were way too big to not be noticed by large amounts of people.

I really don't think this type of creature could hide for very long myself.....

It could hide behind the testosterone posturing....

1. "Brontosauruses" Do not and never did exist. A "Brontosaurus" is an Apatasaurus skeleton with a Brachiosaurus head.
2. A Pterodactylus was not very large, only about as large as a raven.

Just because they pointed out a rhino in a wildlife dosent mean for a fact it is a rhino. They didnt have much to choose from. They might have gone with the animal that looked the closest to the animal they see.
That would be like if i saw a flying dino close up and someone showing me a wildlife book on brids to choose from.

It is far more likely than anything that anything else is it not?
You are chosing the least likely out come. The picked a rhino from a book on identifying African wildlife. They said that WAS the animal. Whether you like it or not there are no dinosaurs left, they have been gone a very long time, they will never come back, there is no evidence for their existance, however, evidence for rhinos was found in the Congo.
They had a book contianing all the wildlife of central Africa, that is plenty to chose from.
The likely answer is nearly always the right one.