I said it b4 ill say it again,
particularly in the case of the chinese dragon, but also possible in the case of all dragons.....Totem animals. Simple.
Here's a site that discusses the origins of the chinese dragon....
Now many experts agree on that dragon came of a totem mainly consisting of snake. It had snake's body, pig's head, deer's horns, bull's ear, goat's beard, hawk's claws and fish's squama. This view introduces a penetrating insight towards the life of ancient society: in remote times of clanship, the Huaxia Clan symbolized by snake totem in the Yellow River drainage area conquered other clans and then grew into a big clan union by integrating others together with their totems. That was how the totem of dragon came into being.
http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/01780/...nese-dragon.htm
and that site is not the only one that has this WACKY WAY OUT THERE VIEW. look around, youll find this theory more credible than any that desires to proove that dragons actually existed and still do today.
Full Version: Dragons are still Alive?
QUOTE(lil gremlin @ Apr 24 2007, 07:29 AM) [snapback]1643792[/snapback]
I said it b4 ill say it again,
particularly in the case of the chinese dragon, but also possible in the case of all dragons.....Totem animals. Simple.
Here's a site that discusses the origins of the chinese dragon....
Now many experts agree on that dragon came of a totem mainly consisting of snake. It had snake's body, pig's head, deer's horns, bull's ear, goat's beard, hawk's claws and fish's squama. This view introduces a penetrating insight towards the life of ancient society: in remote times of clanship, the Huaxia Clan symbolized by snake totem in the Yellow River drainage area conquered other clans and then grew into a big clan union by integrating others together with their totems. That was how the totem of dragon came into being.
http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/01780/...nese-dragon.htm
and that site is not the only one that has this WACKY WAY OUT THERE VIEW. look around, youll find this theory more credible than any that desires to proove that dragons actually existed and still do today.
particularly in the case of the chinese dragon, but also possible in the case of all dragons.....Totem animals. Simple.
Here's a site that discusses the origins of the chinese dragon....
Now many experts agree on that dragon came of a totem mainly consisting of snake. It had snake's body, pig's head, deer's horns, bull's ear, goat's beard, hawk's claws and fish's squama. This view introduces a penetrating insight towards the life of ancient society: in remote times of clanship, the Huaxia Clan symbolized by snake totem in the Yellow River drainage area conquered other clans and then grew into a big clan union by integrating others together with their totems. That was how the totem of dragon came into being.
http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/01780/...nese-dragon.htm
and that site is not the only one that has this WACKY WAY OUT THERE VIEW. look around, youll find this theory more credible than any that desires to proove that dragons actually existed and still do today.
The ancient Chinese dragons are NOT the COMPOSITE creatures that you are talking about now. There is nothing deer-like, pig-like, camel-like, etc about them. I have posted picutres before and there will be many good examples illustrated in my book. They are winged dragons with short bodies like western and mesopotamian dragons. Were later Chines dragons composite creatures: yes, and I do not disagree with your source. But the early chinese were not making a symbolic creature........ they literature proves they believed these were very real creatures, even to the point of imposing strict laws to prohibit commoners speaking with them.
Wow. I never thought this topic would get so much attention!!
QUOTE(draconic chronicler @ Apr 24 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]1644292[/snapback]
The ancient Chinese dragons are NOT the COMPOSITE creatures that you are talking about now. There is nothing deer-like, pig-like, camel-like, etc about them. I have posted picutres before and there will be many good examples illustrated in my book. They are winged dragons with short bodies like western and mesopotamian dragons. Were later Chines dragons composite creatures: yes, and I do not disagree with your source. But the early chinese were not making a symbolic creature........ they literature proves they believed these were very real creatures, even to the point of imposing strict laws to prohibit commoners speaking with them.
Id love to see a picture of that, could you post them again for this thread, it could be good for your case, also what date is the dragon? and to what people was it attributed? I have tried to find some info on this online, could you point me to any sources? also could you show where this literature is, does it correspond to this particular type of dragon or later types?
QUOTE(Cynocephalus @ Apr 24 2007, 02:33 PM) [snapback]1644351[/snapback]
Wow. I never thought this topic would get so much attention!!
All I can say is I see this whole topic got REALLY crazy! I'm thinking that maybe people of ancient times found bits and pieces of dinosaur bones and just concluded they were 'dragons'. There are many cultures that have dragons in their literature but I am sure that quite a few - if not all of these places also had dinosaur bones. And possibly some parts of one dinosaur got mixed up w/another species - like the wings on another type of head but I highly doubt they would still be alive today (at least the flying kind) or else we would have experienced them - not just a few sitings of these 'thunderbirds'. As for sea creatures, well the ocean is VERY deep and who's to say what lurks way down below. Look at some of the odd things that get washed ashore after a hurricane or other major sea storm. Stuff we'd never imagine - and they aren't all tore up and 1/2 decomposed like some of those 'creatures' that some were saying were Plesiosaurs. Cool thought, but if they in fact did test them (and I can't see any reason why SOMEONE would not take a piece of it to some lab to be tested), and they were found to be some species of whale, basking shark, whatever, then why would they lie to us? What would that accomplish? The WHOLE WORLD is not about the creation story, so why would they hide the fact that evolution is not true? Doesn't make any sense. Now what Nessie is, or Ogo Pogo, or Champ, I wonder. Maybe they are Plesiosaurs or maybe they are some new creature. New species are being found all the time. People like to imagine things spectacular like dragons still exist. I think it's a case of 'mistaken identity' by ancient people who found dinosaur bones, but that's just my opinion...
There seems to be alot of academic support for the theory i posted earlier,
More than 80 leading experts from China and abroad met in Chifeng late last month to exchange the latest information on Hongshan, a relics site dating back some 6,500 to 5,000 years. The site, whose name means "red mountain," was discovered in 1935.
Traditional Chinese dragon worship developed from primitive people who struggled to survive by fishing and hunting. They thus appreciated and revered important food resources such as pigs, deer, birds and snakes, said Tian Guanglin, an archaeologist with the Liaoning Normal University.
The dragon image coalesced into animal-head and snake-body in the Hongshan cultural period and remained unchanged until the Han Dynasty (206 BC - AD 220), nearly 4,000 years later. Dragon images from Hongshan were the earliest standard image of dragons discovered in China, said Tian.
The largest and most vivid discovery is a jade, pig-headed dragon about 26 centimeters long and bent like the letter "C." It had a pig head, snake body, tight-lipped snout, bulging eyes and a hole dug in its back, said Liu Guoxiang, an archaeologist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS).
http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/103466.htm
More than 80 leading experts from China and abroad met in Chifeng late last month to exchange the latest information on Hongshan, a relics site dating back some 6,500 to 5,000 years. The site, whose name means "red mountain," was discovered in 1935.
Traditional Chinese dragon worship developed from primitive people who struggled to survive by fishing and hunting. They thus appreciated and revered important food resources such as pigs, deer, birds and snakes, said Tian Guanglin, an archaeologist with the Liaoning Normal University.
The dragon image coalesced into animal-head and snake-body in the Hongshan cultural period and remained unchanged until the Han Dynasty (206 BC - AD 220), nearly 4,000 years later. Dragon images from Hongshan were the earliest standard image of dragons discovered in China, said Tian.
The largest and most vivid discovery is a jade, pig-headed dragon about 26 centimeters long and bent like the letter "C." It had a pig head, snake body, tight-lipped snout, bulging eyes and a hole dug in its back, said Liu Guoxiang, an archaeologist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS).
http://www.china.org.cn/english/culture/103466.htm
QUOTE(Juupy froot @ Apr 24 2007, 12:11 PM) [snapback]1643768[/snapback]
Elasmotherium, wasn't it?
no its a living animal today
i think its the sumachrin ryhno? did i spell that right?
but yeah i think its the sumachrin
Click to view attachment
This is a typical Han dynasty dragon. Most of the dragons from this time have wings and normal bodies. Compare it with the dragon Ningishzida from ancient Sumeria (who was one of the two Cherubs in the Biblical Eden story). They are increibly similar. We also see the beard on dragons from Greece to China to signifying their great wisdom n virtually every human culture.
The legends talk of these dragons teaching the Chinese their technologies, letting important humans ride on their backs, given offerings/sacrifices because they could control the weather, etc. In lists of ancient laws and edicts, alongside perfectly normal laws, were edicts forbidding commoners to associate with dragons. Special temples were set aside to offer rest and refreshment to traveling dragons.
Here we have the most advanced culture in the bronze age, yet their records speak of intelligent, talking dragons being as real as themselves. Could all of this been invented simply because they found a few bones? And why would people all over the world attribute great intelligence to dragons if all they knew of them were a few bones? This is an "Unexplained Mystery" which the ridiculous "dino bone" theory has never adequately answered. Could the "dragons" be a kind of reptilian alien, reported by ancient cultures all over the world? And then did they leave, leaving no evidence but worldwide legends?
QUOTE(lil gremlin @ Apr 24 2007, 03:39 PM) [snapback]1644530[/snapback]
Id love to see a picture of that, could you post them again for this thread, it could be good for your case, also what date is the dragon? and to what people was it attributed? I have tried to find some info on this online, could you point me to any sources? also could you show where this literature is, does it correspond to this particular type of dragon or later types?
This is a typical Han dynasty dragon. Most of the dragons from this time have wings and normal bodies. Compare it with the dragon Ningishzida from ancient Sumeria (who was one of the two Cherubs in the Biblical Eden story). They are increibly similar. We also see the beard on dragons from Greece to China to signifying their great wisdom n virtually every human culture.
The legends talk of these dragons teaching the Chinese their technologies, letting important humans ride on their backs, given offerings/sacrifices because they could control the weather, etc. In lists of ancient laws and edicts, alongside perfectly normal laws, were edicts forbidding commoners to associate with dragons. Special temples were set aside to offer rest and refreshment to traveling dragons.
Here we have the most advanced culture in the bronze age, yet their records speak of intelligent, talking dragons being as real as themselves. Could all of this been invented simply because they found a few bones? And why would people all over the world attribute great intelligence to dragons if all they knew of them were a few bones? This is an "Unexplained Mystery" which the ridiculous "dino bone" theory has never adequately answered. Could the "dragons" be a kind of reptilian alien, reported by ancient cultures all over the world? And then did they leave, leaving no evidence but worldwide legends?
i agree that the Han dragons look similar to the sumerian, may they have had cultural links?
remember the han dynasty is 4000 years after the progression mentioned above, plenty of time for distinct totems and mythical traditions to form.
heres a Han dragon and a Tang dragon to ponder...
The depiction of the han dragon is from a wall panel from a tomb, it is of the Green dragon of the East, one of the 4 cardinal directions....ive also included another mythical animal that the Han revered the qilin, it demonstrates the highly symbolic nature of these sorts of creatures, as you say they were rather sophisticated culturally and had by this time developed an advanced and detailed mythology. It doesnt mean they really existed though.
heres the description of the tomb depictions...
The sinuous, undulating body of the Green Dragon (qinglong) moves forward as he raises his rear haunches and springs into action.[1] His elongated jaw and open mouth end in fork-shaped lips. His horns or ears are perked back into curls. The clawed feet of three legs seem to shovel the air forward in frenetic motion while his uppermost leg reaches toward his mouth. The striped band under the throat runs down its neck to accentuate the curvature of his front chest and then continues under his trunk and along the tight reflex curves of his flicking S-shaped tail, which ends in a flame-like tip.
Known as the siling, or “four spirits,” the Green Dragon of the East, White Tiger of the West, Red Bird of the South, and Dark Warrior of the North are the animals of the four directions.[2] The concept of gods of the four directions harkens back to Shang dynasty oracle bones. An early representation of animals associated with the directions is seen in a mirror of the seventh century BCE bearing two tigers, a stag, and a bird.[3] During the Qin and Han dynasties, four directional animals were used to decorate tiles and bricks in palaces and tombs. By the early Western Han, these animals decorated both coffins and tombs. In Tomb 1 at Mawangdui, the siling, comprised at that time of the dragon, tiger, phoenix, and deer, are illustrated on the inner coffin of Lady Dai (d. 186 BCE). In 130 BCE the emperor Han Wudi formally adopted a correspondence between the directions and their symbolic animals, known as the sishen, or “four deities.” Some of the earliest large tomb bricks decorated with the four animals are found in his tomb at Maoling.[4]
Our four directional tiles, decorated with their four corresponding animals, were excavated from the tomb at Jinqueshan (Golden Sparrow Mountain) in Linyi. The design of each animal was impressed into the wet gray clay of the hollow tile, and the finished tile was then inserted into the wall of the tomb.[5] In addition to the four directional animals, this tomb also yielded a hollow brick tile with a unicorn (qilin) (cat. no. 50) as well as the handprints of perhaps the artisan who made the tiles (cat. no. 51). All seven tiles were stamped on the side with the character zhang, the name of either the artisan or the tomb occupant. The tomb also contained two hollow tiles bearing images of horses, two tiles with differing lotus designs, a tile with a female figure, and a tile with the impression of a wuzhu coin (see cat. no. 19).[6] The four directional animals are an integral part of the cosmology of the Han dynasty and transform the tomb into a cosmic diagram of the afterlife, providing protection in all directions.
the qilin
Most likely, the animal impressed on this tomb tile is a qilin—a mythological composite animal with cosmological merit—rather than a lion as listed in the excavation report. In tombs, the qilin is often found in combination with the four directional animals. The qilin shown here has a craggy face like a bulldog, a body like a dog, a tail like a bird, and claws on his feet like a turtle. His face is shown in full frontal view with a broad smiling mouth, high cheeks, and small triangular ears, while his springing body is shown in profile. His long feather-like tail juts out behind him as he prances, acting as a counterbalance to the raised lines forming the whiskers around his face.
The qilin is often depicted with a horn jutting from his forehead like a unicorn.[1] In ancient Chinese literature, this creature is invariably linked to Confucius. The capture of a qilin is credited as the immediate impetus for Confucius’ composition of the Chunqiu (Spring and Autumn Annals).[2] The mythic potency of the qilin during the Han dynasty was derived from its ability to portend either good government or the birth of a virtuous ruler. Such numinous animals were used as auspicious omens (xiangrui) to augur the virtuous and corrupt cycles implicit in imperial rule and dynastic change.[3] In 95 BCE, the Han emperor Wudi issued an edict that gold ingots were henceforth to be made in the shape of horse or qilin hoofs as a reward to the nobility.[4] A gold qilin hoof is in the collection of the Hebei Provincial Cultural Research Institute.[5] The qilin retained its status as an auspicious animal through the Qing dynasty when its image decorated First Rank mandarin squares on the robes of military officials.
www.asianart.com/exhibitions/shandong/28.html
http://www.shanghaimuseum.net/en/collectio.../juti.asp?id=48
remember the han dynasty is 4000 years after the progression mentioned above, plenty of time for distinct totems and mythical traditions to form.
heres a Han dragon and a Tang dragon to ponder...
The depiction of the han dragon is from a wall panel from a tomb, it is of the Green dragon of the East, one of the 4 cardinal directions....ive also included another mythical animal that the Han revered the qilin, it demonstrates the highly symbolic nature of these sorts of creatures, as you say they were rather sophisticated culturally and had by this time developed an advanced and detailed mythology. It doesnt mean they really existed though.
heres the description of the tomb depictions...
The sinuous, undulating body of the Green Dragon (qinglong) moves forward as he raises his rear haunches and springs into action.[1] His elongated jaw and open mouth end in fork-shaped lips. His horns or ears are perked back into curls. The clawed feet of three legs seem to shovel the air forward in frenetic motion while his uppermost leg reaches toward his mouth. The striped band under the throat runs down its neck to accentuate the curvature of his front chest and then continues under his trunk and along the tight reflex curves of his flicking S-shaped tail, which ends in a flame-like tip.
Known as the siling, or “four spirits,” the Green Dragon of the East, White Tiger of the West, Red Bird of the South, and Dark Warrior of the North are the animals of the four directions.[2] The concept of gods of the four directions harkens back to Shang dynasty oracle bones. An early representation of animals associated with the directions is seen in a mirror of the seventh century BCE bearing two tigers, a stag, and a bird.[3] During the Qin and Han dynasties, four directional animals were used to decorate tiles and bricks in palaces and tombs. By the early Western Han, these animals decorated both coffins and tombs. In Tomb 1 at Mawangdui, the siling, comprised at that time of the dragon, tiger, phoenix, and deer, are illustrated on the inner coffin of Lady Dai (d. 186 BCE). In 130 BCE the emperor Han Wudi formally adopted a correspondence between the directions and their symbolic animals, known as the sishen, or “four deities.” Some of the earliest large tomb bricks decorated with the four animals are found in his tomb at Maoling.[4]
Our four directional tiles, decorated with their four corresponding animals, were excavated from the tomb at Jinqueshan (Golden Sparrow Mountain) in Linyi. The design of each animal was impressed into the wet gray clay of the hollow tile, and the finished tile was then inserted into the wall of the tomb.[5] In addition to the four directional animals, this tomb also yielded a hollow brick tile with a unicorn (qilin) (cat. no. 50) as well as the handprints of perhaps the artisan who made the tiles (cat. no. 51). All seven tiles were stamped on the side with the character zhang, the name of either the artisan or the tomb occupant. The tomb also contained two hollow tiles bearing images of horses, two tiles with differing lotus designs, a tile with a female figure, and a tile with the impression of a wuzhu coin (see cat. no. 19).[6] The four directional animals are an integral part of the cosmology of the Han dynasty and transform the tomb into a cosmic diagram of the afterlife, providing protection in all directions.
the qilin
Most likely, the animal impressed on this tomb tile is a qilin—a mythological composite animal with cosmological merit—rather than a lion as listed in the excavation report. In tombs, the qilin is often found in combination with the four directional animals. The qilin shown here has a craggy face like a bulldog, a body like a dog, a tail like a bird, and claws on his feet like a turtle. His face is shown in full frontal view with a broad smiling mouth, high cheeks, and small triangular ears, while his springing body is shown in profile. His long feather-like tail juts out behind him as he prances, acting as a counterbalance to the raised lines forming the whiskers around his face.
The qilin is often depicted with a horn jutting from his forehead like a unicorn.[1] In ancient Chinese literature, this creature is invariably linked to Confucius. The capture of a qilin is credited as the immediate impetus for Confucius’ composition of the Chunqiu (Spring and Autumn Annals).[2] The mythic potency of the qilin during the Han dynasty was derived from its ability to portend either good government or the birth of a virtuous ruler. Such numinous animals were used as auspicious omens (xiangrui) to augur the virtuous and corrupt cycles implicit in imperial rule and dynastic change.[3] In 95 BCE, the Han emperor Wudi issued an edict that gold ingots were henceforth to be made in the shape of horse or qilin hoofs as a reward to the nobility.[4] A gold qilin hoof is in the collection of the Hebei Provincial Cultural Research Institute.[5] The qilin retained its status as an auspicious animal through the Qing dynasty when its image decorated First Rank mandarin squares on the robes of military officials.
www.asianart.com/exhibitions/shandong/28.html
http://www.shanghaimuseum.net/en/collectio.../juti.asp?id=48
here's another great link for info on the origins of the chinese dragon...and the development of the myth.
http://www.cic.sfu.ca/cchf/dragonInChina.html
its well worth checking out.
http://www.cic.sfu.ca/cchf/dragonInChina.html
its well worth checking out.
hey there
i just read this and i decided to throw my two cents in. the Discovery Channel actually did a special on this about a year ago. they concluded that dragons could of excisted. Basically there reasoning behind it was that they were desendents of dinosaurs and lived in hiding/ small numbers. Their explaination for fire breathing was equally astonishing. They said that Dragons could have breathed fire by eating certain fruits that incorporate alcohol into their system. then they used a tooth like object under their tongue to make a spark, and presto instant fire breath. Wether or not there alive now, well i guess its a pretty descent possibility, but then again humans do have a nasty habit of putting things on the good old extinction list. Anyways, all you non-believers should check out the Discovery Channel special. I will admit that i was a bit sketical at first, but come on it is the Discovery Channel. They do have some idea of what they are talking about.
sincerly
fin
i just read this and i decided to throw my two cents in. the Discovery Channel actually did a special on this about a year ago. they concluded that dragons could of excisted. Basically there reasoning behind it was that they were desendents of dinosaurs and lived in hiding/ small numbers. Their explaination for fire breathing was equally astonishing. They said that Dragons could have breathed fire by eating certain fruits that incorporate alcohol into their system. then they used a tooth like object under their tongue to make a spark, and presto instant fire breath. Wether or not there alive now, well i guess its a pretty descent possibility, but then again humans do have a nasty habit of putting things on the good old extinction list. Anyways, all you non-believers should check out the Discovery Channel special. I will admit that i was a bit sketical at first, but come on it is the Discovery Channel. They do have some idea of what they are talking about.
sincerly
fin
QUOTE(finthebrit @ Apr 24 2007, 09:32 PM) [snapback]1644981[/snapback]
hey there
i just read this and i decided to throw my two cents in. the Discovery Channel actually did a special on this about a year ago. they concluded that dragons could of excisted. Basically there reasoning behind it was that they were desendents of dinosaurs and lived in hiding/ small numbers. Their explaination for fire breathing was equally astonishing. They said that Dragons could have breathed fire by eating certain fruits that incorporate alcohol into their system. then they used a tooth like object under their tongue to make a spark, and presto instant fire breath. Wether or not there alive now, well i guess its a pretty descent possibility, but then again humans do have a nasty habit of putting things on the good old extinction list. Anyways, all you non-believers should check out the Discovery Channel special. I will admit that i was a bit sketical at first, but come on it is the Discovery Channel. They do have some idea of what they are talking about.
sincerly
fin
i just read this and i decided to throw my two cents in. the Discovery Channel actually did a special on this about a year ago. they concluded that dragons could of excisted. Basically there reasoning behind it was that they were desendents of dinosaurs and lived in hiding/ small numbers. Their explaination for fire breathing was equally astonishing. They said that Dragons could have breathed fire by eating certain fruits that incorporate alcohol into their system. then they used a tooth like object under their tongue to make a spark, and presto instant fire breath. Wether or not there alive now, well i guess its a pretty descent possibility, but then again humans do have a nasty habit of putting things on the good old extinction list. Anyways, all you non-believers should check out the Discovery Channel special. I will admit that i was a bit sketical at first, but come on it is the Discovery Channel. They do have some idea of what they are talking about.
sincerly
fin
I saw that special. It didn't make me believe.
And I thought religious topics were messy...
QUOTE(ericraven2003 @ Apr 25 2007, 10:41 AM) [snapback]1645715[/snapback]
I saw that special. It didn't make me believe.
yeah, I saw it as well, I thought it was interesting, but just a lot of speculation... IMO
QUOTE
Hi 'Nephilim_Slayer'
You are dead right. It s called Unexplained Mysteries. Not The Stupid People Gathering Place. That is why people that you call closed minded laugh at the ridiculous tales that some expect the masses to believe. Sheesh. Do you think Santa does exist? Have you been to the North Pole and made sure no elves are working their butts off in hiding? Would you mount such an expedition?
There is a big difference between being thourough and just wasting time.
So, thousands of people have seen dragons????? Proliferating untruths does not bolster your case.
Some evidence that does not define the word crappy proving the existance of the so called claimed sightings would be a good start. Might look hideous?? Hide?? A fire breathing massive creature hide from the likes of me?????? COME ON. I know you cannot see me, but trust me on this one, I do not look that stupid. Adapted to avoid humans? Grasping at straws here. Gosh, I am sure the link has only been posted as a conversational point. Surely nobody would even consider putting any stock in that terrible website.
Think hard because, "Dragonz dontz existz man".
And I agree with you, that avatar is disrespectful.
You are dead right. It s called Unexplained Mysteries. Not The Stupid People Gathering Place. That is why people that you call closed minded laugh at the ridiculous tales that some expect the masses to believe. Sheesh. Do you think Santa does exist? Have you been to the North Pole and made sure no elves are working their butts off in hiding? Would you mount such an expedition?
There is a big difference between being thourough and just wasting time.
So, thousands of people have seen dragons????? Proliferating untruths does not bolster your case.
Some evidence that does not define the word crappy proving the existance of the so called claimed sightings would be a good start. Might look hideous?? Hide?? A fire breathing massive creature hide from the likes of me?????? COME ON. I know you cannot see me, but trust me on this one, I do not look that stupid. Adapted to avoid humans? Grasping at straws here. Gosh, I am sure the link has only been posted as a conversational point. Surely nobody would even consider putting any stock in that terrible website.
Think hard because, "Dragonz dontz existz man".
And I agree with you, that avatar is disrespectful.
Many are against your kind of thinking Mister. I believe that an age existed on Earth that may have consisted with flying dragons, and elves and what not. How about you relax, read a book on fantasy and daydream a little about dragons maybe living in deep caverns beneath the mountains. --------------------
Truth is stranger then fiction because fiction has to make sence.
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
QUOTE(Nephilim_Slayer @ Apr 23 2007, 07:20 PM) [snapback]1643253[/snapback]
Rather interesting theory there Isis, I have heard idea's similar to that. But I don't think 95% of this board knows what you mean, even though I do, people on this board tend to be a little closed minded.
Thank you, Nephilim Slayer; you are respectful and nice.
I think a lot of people don't understand that these types of creatures have been mentioned in ancient texts and artwork. There are also depictions of other creatures that appear to be chimeras. It is believed that this genetic engineering was known in ancient times too, and it is believed today that these chimeras are still being created.
I believe we have to pay attention to our ancient texts and artwork because that is the primary means in which we can learn about our history on this planet and the kinds of creatures that existed at that time. What we have to consider too is that many of these creatures became extinct over time as they became unable to reproduce or adapt to their environment. There are so many animals that have become exitinct such as the dodo bird, and there are many animals currently in danger of extinction.
Have a nice day.
QUOTE(Isis2200 @ Apr 25 2007, 11:37 AM) [snapback]1645804[/snapback]
It is believed that this genetic engineering was known in ancient times too, and it is believed today that these chimeras are still being created.
Believed by who. A few people on the fringe maybe. No one else that uses logic would believe it.
QUOTE(finthebrit @ Apr 24 2007, 09:32 PM) [snapback]1644981[/snapback]
hey there
i just read this and i decided to throw my two cents in. the Discovery Channel actually did a special on this about a year ago. they concluded that dragons could of excisted. Basically there reasoning behind it was that they were desendents of dinosaurs and lived in hiding/ small numbers. Their explaination for fire breathing was equally astonishing. They said that Dragons could have breathed fire by eating certain fruits that incorporate alcohol into their system. then they used a tooth like object under their tongue to make a spark, and presto instant fire breath. Wether or not there alive now, well i guess its a pretty descent possibility, but then again humans do have a nasty habit of putting things on the good old extinction list. Anyways, all you non-believers should check out the Discovery Channel special. I will admit that i was a bit sketical at first, but come on it is the Discovery Channel. They do have some idea of what they are talking about.
sincerly
fin
i just read this and i decided to throw my two cents in. the Discovery Channel actually did a special on this about a year ago. they concluded that dragons could of excisted. Basically there reasoning behind it was that they were desendents of dinosaurs and lived in hiding/ small numbers. Their explaination for fire breathing was equally astonishing. They said that Dragons could have breathed fire by eating certain fruits that incorporate alcohol into their system. then they used a tooth like object under their tongue to make a spark, and presto instant fire breath. Wether or not there alive now, well i guess its a pretty descent possibility, but then again humans do have a nasty habit of putting things on the good old extinction list. Anyways, all you non-believers should check out the Discovery Channel special. I will admit that i was a bit sketical at first, but come on it is the Discovery Channel. They do have some idea of what they are talking about.
sincerly
fin
Thank you, Finthebrit, for letting us know about that Discovery Channel special. Gee, I wonder if they would have something about this at Blockbuster video. Yeah, when people start to attack like that, if you view them more closely, you'll find they haven't really done their homework. Frankly, I think that kind of behavior is rude and immature.
Finthebrit, please let me know if you find out if it will be re-broadcast. Thank you.
QUOTE(ericraven2003 @ Apr 25 2007, 11:46 AM) [snapback]1645821[/snapback]
Believed by who. A few people on the fringe maybe. No one else that uses logic would believe it.
Chimeras? Ancient genetic engineering? I believe it.
QUOTE(Isis2200 @ Apr 25 2007, 03:29 PM) [snapback]1646124[/snapback]
Thank you, Finthebrit, for letting us know about that Discovery Channel special. Gee, I wonder if they would have something about this at Blockbuster video. Yeah, when people start to attack like that, if you view them more closely, you'll find they haven't really done their homework. Frankly, I think that kind of behavior is rude and immature.
Finthebrit, please let me know if you find out if it will be re-broadcast. Thank you.
Finthebrit, please let me know if you find out if it will be re-broadcast. Thank you.
Actually, I have done my homework and you are talking about a fantasy world that has no basis in reality.
Its not being rude. It is stating facts.
QUOTE
Science Journal: Chimeras exist, what if some turn out too human?
Friday, May 06, 2005
By Sharon Begley, The Wall Street Journal
If you had just created a mouse with human brain cells, one thing you wouldn't want to hear the little guy say is, "Hi there, I'm Mickey." Even worse, of course, would be something like, "Get me out of this & percentGBP !! body!"
It's been several millennia since Greek mythology dreamed up the chimera, a creature with the head of a lion, the body of a goat and the tail of a serpent. Research on the chimera front was pretty quiet for 2,500 years. But then in 1984 scientists announced that they had merged embryonic goat cells with embryonic sheep cells, producing a "geep." (It's part wooly, part hairy, with a face only a nanny goat could love.) A human-mouse chimera made its debut in 1988: "SCID-hu" is created when human fetal tissue -- spleen, liver, thymus, lymph node -- is transplanted into a mouse. These guys are clearly mice, but other chimeras are harder to peg. In the 1980s, scientists took brain-to-be tissue from quail embryos and transplanted it into chicken embryos. Once hatched, the chicks made sounds like baby quails.
More part-human chimeras are now in the works or already in lab cages. StemCells Inc., of Palo Alto, Calif., has given hundreds of mice human-brain stem cells, for instance. And before human stem cells are ever used to treat human patients, notes biologist Janet Rowley of the University of Chicago, they (or the cells they develop into) will be implanted into mice and other lab animals. "The centaur has left the barn more than people realize," says Stanford University law professor and bioethicist Henry Greely.
Part-human creatures raise enough ethical concerns that a National Academy of Sciences committee on stem cells veered off into chimeras. It recommended last week that some research be barred, to prevent some of the more monstrous possibilities -- such as a human-sperm-bearing mouse mating with a human-egg-bearing mouse and gestating a human baby. "We're not very concerned about a mouse with a human spleen," says Prof. Greely. "But we get really concerned about our brain and our gonads."
That's why his Stanford colleague, Irving Weissman, asked Prof. Greely to examine the ethical implications of a mouse-human chimera. StemCells, co-founded by Prof. Weissman, has already transplanted human-brain stem cells into the brains of mice that had no immune system (and hence couldn't attack the foreign cells). The stem cells develop into human neurons, migrate through the mouse brain and mingle with mouse cells. The human cells make up less than 1 percent of the mouse brain, and are being used by the company to study neurodegenerative diseases.
But Prof. Weissman had in mind a new sort of chimera. He would start with ill-fated mice whose neurons all die just before or soon after birth. He planned to transplant human-brain stem cells into their brains just before their own neurons died off. Would that lead the human cells to turn into neurons and replace the dead-or-dying mouse neurons, producing a mostly human brain in a mouse?
Such a chimera could bring important scientific benefits. The SCID-hu mouse, though it hasn't yielded a cure for AIDS, has been "a very valuable animal model," says Ramesh Akkina of Colorado State University, Fort Collins, who directs a lab that uses this part-human mouse. "It has human T cells circulating, which will allow us to test gene therapy for AIDS" in a way that will be more relevant to patients than all-animal models. The co-creator of SCID-hu, Michael McCune of the Gladstone Institute of Virology and Immunology, San Francisco, notes that because the human organs last for months in the mice (they would die in days in a lab dish), "it is possible to study the effects of HIV" in many kinds of human cells in a living system.
Similarly, studying living human neurons in a living mouse brain would likely yield more insights than studying human neurons in a lab dish or mouse neurons in a mouse brain. "You could see how pathogens damage human neurons, how experimental drugs act, what happens when you infect human neurons with prions (which cause mad-cow disease) or amyloid (associated with Alzheimer's)," says Prof. Greely. "The big concern is, could you give the mouse some sort of human consciousness or intelligence?"
"All of us are aware of the concern that we're going to have a human brain in a mouse with a person saying, 'Let me out,'" Prof. Rowley told the President's Council on Bioethics when it discussed chimeras in March.
To take no chances, scientists could kill the mice before birth to see if the brain is developing mouse-y structures such as "whisker barrels," which receive signals from the whiskers. If so, it's a mouse. If it is developing a large and complex visual cortex, it's too human. "If you saw something weird, you'd stop," says Prof. Greely. "If not, let the next ones be born, and examine them at different ages to be sure they're still fully mouse."
To reduce the chance that today's chimeras will be as monstrous as the Greeks' were, the U.S. patent office last year rejected an application to patent a human-chimp chimera, or "humanzee." But that, of course, just keeps someone from patenting one -- not making one.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05126/500265.stm
Friday, May 06, 2005
By Sharon Begley, The Wall Street Journal
If you had just created a mouse with human brain cells, one thing you wouldn't want to hear the little guy say is, "Hi there, I'm Mickey." Even worse, of course, would be something like, "Get me out of this & percentGBP !! body!"
It's been several millennia since Greek mythology dreamed up the chimera, a creature with the head of a lion, the body of a goat and the tail of a serpent. Research on the chimera front was pretty quiet for 2,500 years. But then in 1984 scientists announced that they had merged embryonic goat cells with embryonic sheep cells, producing a "geep." (It's part wooly, part hairy, with a face only a nanny goat could love.) A human-mouse chimera made its debut in 1988: "SCID-hu" is created when human fetal tissue -- spleen, liver, thymus, lymph node -- is transplanted into a mouse. These guys are clearly mice, but other chimeras are harder to peg. In the 1980s, scientists took brain-to-be tissue from quail embryos and transplanted it into chicken embryos. Once hatched, the chicks made sounds like baby quails.
More part-human chimeras are now in the works or already in lab cages. StemCells Inc., of Palo Alto, Calif., has given hundreds of mice human-brain stem cells, for instance. And before human stem cells are ever used to treat human patients, notes biologist Janet Rowley of the University of Chicago, they (or the cells they develop into) will be implanted into mice and other lab animals. "The centaur has left the barn more than people realize," says Stanford University law professor and bioethicist Henry Greely.
Part-human creatures raise enough ethical concerns that a National Academy of Sciences committee on stem cells veered off into chimeras. It recommended last week that some research be barred, to prevent some of the more monstrous possibilities -- such as a human-sperm-bearing mouse mating with a human-egg-bearing mouse and gestating a human baby. "We're not very concerned about a mouse with a human spleen," says Prof. Greely. "But we get really concerned about our brain and our gonads."
That's why his Stanford colleague, Irving Weissman, asked Prof. Greely to examine the ethical implications of a mouse-human chimera. StemCells, co-founded by Prof. Weissman, has already transplanted human-brain stem cells into the brains of mice that had no immune system (and hence couldn't attack the foreign cells). The stem cells develop into human neurons, migrate through the mouse brain and mingle with mouse cells. The human cells make up less than 1 percent of the mouse brain, and are being used by the company to study neurodegenerative diseases.
But Prof. Weissman had in mind a new sort of chimera. He would start with ill-fated mice whose neurons all die just before or soon after birth. He planned to transplant human-brain stem cells into their brains just before their own neurons died off. Would that lead the human cells to turn into neurons and replace the dead-or-dying mouse neurons, producing a mostly human brain in a mouse?
Such a chimera could bring important scientific benefits. The SCID-hu mouse, though it hasn't yielded a cure for AIDS, has been "a very valuable animal model," says Ramesh Akkina of Colorado State University, Fort Collins, who directs a lab that uses this part-human mouse. "It has human T cells circulating, which will allow us to test gene therapy for AIDS" in a way that will be more relevant to patients than all-animal models. The co-creator of SCID-hu, Michael McCune of the Gladstone Institute of Virology and Immunology, San Francisco, notes that because the human organs last for months in the mice (they would die in days in a lab dish), "it is possible to study the effects of HIV" in many kinds of human cells in a living system.
Similarly, studying living human neurons in a living mouse brain would likely yield more insights than studying human neurons in a lab dish or mouse neurons in a mouse brain. "You could see how pathogens damage human neurons, how experimental drugs act, what happens when you infect human neurons with prions (which cause mad-cow disease) or amyloid (associated with Alzheimer's)," says Prof. Greely. "The big concern is, could you give the mouse some sort of human consciousness or intelligence?"
"All of us are aware of the concern that we're going to have a human brain in a mouse with a person saying, 'Let me out,'" Prof. Rowley told the President's Council on Bioethics when it discussed chimeras in March.
To take no chances, scientists could kill the mice before birth to see if the brain is developing mouse-y structures such as "whisker barrels," which receive signals from the whiskers. If so, it's a mouse. If it is developing a large and complex visual cortex, it's too human. "If you saw something weird, you'd stop," says Prof. Greely. "If not, let the next ones be born, and examine them at different ages to be sure they're still fully mouse."
To reduce the chance that today's chimeras will be as monstrous as the Greeks' were, the U.S. patent office last year rejected an application to patent a human-chimp chimera, or "humanzee." But that, of course, just keeps someone from patenting one -- not making one.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05126/500265.stm
wait... I'm off topic aren't I...
sorry
QUOTE(Raptor X7 @ Apr 24 2007, 12:52 AM) [snapback]1643626[/snapback]
Yes, you're right! Apart from the fact that they're completely different, the similarities are striking.
LOL come on anyone can pull 2 dissimilar images out of their @$$ but look at alot of the ancient images and its kind of interesting seeing the similarities,Im not saying that Dragons are or were real flesh and blood creatures but I find it interesting that the basic image of the dragon was known the world over..
QUOTE(Dark_Ambient @ Apr 26 2007, 02:18 AM) [snapback]1645772[/snapback]
Many are against your kind of thinking Mister. I believe that an age existed on Earth that may have consisted with flying dragons, and elves and what not. How about you relax, read a book on fantasy and daydream a little about dragons maybe living in deep caverns beneath the mountains. --------------------
Hehe, glad you used the term mister sonny
Of course many are against it. Once reality comes along and slaps them in the face with a big wet fish, their thinking will change
I have read many, many books based in fantasy. I have also read many non-fiction books as well. Believe it or not, pick the right non-fiction book, and it can be quite entertaining. You will find with time how to better distinguish fact from fiction in a far easier and quicker manner. This forum is to discuss mysteries, not fairytales. With time, reading your non-fiction will help you to understand how you are confusing this world with reality, and why the two just do not mix.
I understand fantasy, and I understand reality. I think it might be prudet that you stick your head back into some non-fiction for a while. Then you will see why this "age" you believe in has never existed. How's this for a deal, whilst I read "The Never Ending Story" or "Lord of the Rings" (incidently, I read this 24 years ago, well before it was popular in cinemas, as well as "The Hobbit", ) and you promise to get your head into some seriously scientific literature
What do you say - deal?
not believing in dragons does NOT make you close minded!!!!!!!
QUOTE(Isis2200 @ Apr 25 2007, 05:37 PM) [snapback]1645804[/snapback]
It is believed that this genetic engineering was known in ancient times too, and it is believed today that these chimeras are still being created.
Believed by who? How exactly was genetic engineering possible "in ancient times", without all the advances we have today? Of all the spurious, ridiculous things I've read on this board, this is Top 10.
And BTW, theres a difference between being open-minded and being completey illogical.
QUOTE(Emma_Acid_88 @ Apr 26 2007, 11:07 AM) [snapback]1646938[/snapback]
Believed by who? How exactly was genetic engineering possible "in ancient times", without all the advances we have today? Of all the spurious, ridiculous things I've read on this board, this is Top 10.
And BTW, theres a difference between being open-minded and being completey illogical.
And BTW, theres a difference between being open-minded and being completey illogical.
Well said, one of my favorite sayings is "don't be so open minded that your brain falls out"!
QUOTE(Emma_Acid_88 @ Apr 26 2007, 06:07 AM) [snapback]1646938[/snapback]
Believed by who? How exactly was genetic engineering possible "in ancient times", without all the advances we have today? Of all the spurious, ridiculous things I've read on this board, this is Top 10.
And BTW, theres a difference between being open-minded and being completey illogical.
And BTW, theres a difference between being open-minded and being completey illogical.
YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!
"We found that the photosynthesis-related genes in these organisms have not had all the same pathway of evolution. It's clear evidence for horizontal gene transfer," said Blankenship.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/...21122074236.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/gautam/hind0006.htm (was human cloning known to vedic sages?)
(Hindu and Christian religions talk about it, as well as Many other religious texts)
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/11/61210 "An ancient ear of corn shows that farmers made drastic genetic modifications to corn at least 4,400 years ago."
anything to do with the "ancient astronauts" theories usually gets to that point
I don't think our ancestors were complete idiots, and even if they were I still think there were other civilizations before humanity and/or some form of "divine intervention" (be it aliens or gods or whatever)... and accidents, maybe didn't Mean to do what they did but hit that 1 in 30 trillion chance.
While I'm positive Issis2200 and I do not see eye to eye on some other issue, it should be clear we're not the only two individuals to consider this possibility.
Maybe I *am* too open minded, but I still believe it's entirely possible at the very least.
too bad none of us were there
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/...21122074236.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/gautam/hind0006.htm (was human cloning known to vedic sages?)
(Hindu and Christian religions talk about it, as well as Many other religious texts)
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/11/61210 "An ancient ear of corn shows that farmers made drastic genetic modifications to corn at least 4,400 years ago."
anything to do with the "ancient astronauts" theories usually gets to that point
I don't think our ancestors were complete idiots, and even if they were I still think there were other civilizations before humanity and/or some form of "divine intervention" (be it aliens or gods or whatever)... and accidents, maybe didn't Mean to do what they did but hit that 1 in 30 trillion chance.
While I'm positive Issis2200 and I do not see eye to eye on some other issue, it should be clear we're not the only two individuals to consider this possibility.
Maybe I *am* too open minded, but I still believe it's entirely possible at the very least.
too bad none of us were there
anyhoo....dragons, nahhhh just mythology, totems, they dont exist as living creatures, and as we think of them now they never did.
If dragons do or did not exist why do many religons around the world refer to them. even or own bible has references to dragons.
QUOTE(Blue Dragon @ Apr 27 2007, 11:07 AM) [snapback]1648193[/snapback]
If dragons do or did not exist why do many religons around the world refer to them. even or own bible has references to dragons.
Remember, no TV in those days. Written word served for stories as well as a transfer of information. Just because many places in the world have similar stories, wouldn't that stand to reason that the people who make these stories were widesprerad, not the character in the story?
Gracious man, how interprative is the Bible!!!!! To take a reference and attempt to qualify it at literal is ludicrous!! Even the most devout Christian should understand that.
QUOTE(Blue Dragon @ Apr 27 2007, 02:07 AM) [snapback]1648193[/snapback]
If dragons do or did not exist why do many religons around the world refer to them. even or own bible has references to dragons.
blimey you sound like someone else i know....
good answer psyche...storytelling was as important then as tv is now...how the culture, its traditions, its mythology etc are all transmitted to the young.
Some nutters try to say that there is one being that is the source of all dragon stories, a bonefide dragon.....wrong.
the most consistant creature in the development of dragon myths around the world is the snake....although it is not the only reptile.
The chinese dragon came from tribal totems. see my earlier posts for more....
it is likely that sumerian and other eurasian dragons developed along similar lines.
History in early societies is transmitted as stories, often highly symbolic and full of archetypes. these become myth.....myth can become theology.
intercultural mixing is an important factor in the development of such concepts.
QUOTE(Blue Dragon @ Apr 27 2007, 01:07 AM) [snapback]1648193[/snapback]
If dragons do or did not exist why do many religons around the world refer to them. even or own bible has references to dragons.
well if the dragon was in every culter around the world and they were seen as "awsome" beasts its no wonder that ppl would put them in the religius stories
QUOTE(lil gremlin @ Apr 26 2007, 08:43 PM) [snapback]1648232[/snapback]
blimey you sound like someone else i know....
good answer psyche...storytelling was as important then as tv is now...how the culture, its traditions, its mythology etc are all transmitted to the young.
Some nutters try to say that there is one being that is the source of all dragon stories, a bonefide dragon.....wrong.
the most consistant creature in the development of dragon myths around the world is the snake....although it is not the only reptile.
The chinese dragon came from tribal totems. see my earlier posts for more....
it is likely that sumerian and other eurasian dragons developed along similar lines.
History in early societies is transmitted as stories, often highly symbolic and full of archetypes. these become myth.....myth can become theology.
intercultural mixing is an important factor in the development of such concepts.
good answer psyche...storytelling was as important then as tv is now...how the culture, its traditions, its mythology etc are all transmitted to the young.
Some nutters try to say that there is one being that is the source of all dragon stories, a bonefide dragon.....wrong.
the most consistant creature in the development of dragon myths around the world is the snake....although it is not the only reptile.
The chinese dragon came from tribal totems. see my earlier posts for more....
it is likely that sumerian and other eurasian dragons developed along similar lines.
History in early societies is transmitted as stories, often highly symbolic and full of archetypes. these become myth.....myth can become theology.
intercultural mixing is an important factor in the development of such concepts.
As usual Grem, you have no idea what you are talking about. You parrot Wiki articles from people who are as clueless as you.
The early chinese dragons such as the one I posted blast the "composite totem animal theory" to pieces. These early dragons bear no resemblence to the much later chinese fantasy dragons made up of various body parts of mammals, birds fish and reptiles. Instead, save for the sylized wings, they are simply a kind of quadreped similar to dinosaurs, believed an illustrated long before anyone knew how to reconstruct a prehistoric creature, though all of this seems to be beyond your comprehension.
This dragon is virtually identical to ancient Sumerian dragons and there is no evidence of these peoples being in contact during such ancient times. And then there are surprising similar ancient mayan dragons, but I suppose you think all of these widely seperated peoples shared pictures of mythical dragons between themselve during jaunts in their flying saucers. And if these are supposely composites of animals people feared the most, as one antrhopologist rather stupidly remarked, why are they then worshipped as beneficent bringers of civilization? These people you invent this nonsense cannot answer these questions.
The only plausible conclusion is that both groups of peoples and those in many other places besides, saw and recorded the same creature. Only many hundreds of years later would the different peoples of the world conconct less realistic versions of dragons drawn from memories and cultural traits, instead of actual sightings like the ancient representations. Though as I said before, dragons are still constantly being seen, only now they go by more "acceptaple names like pterosaurs or plesiosaurs. They are still on of the most prevalent of all cryptic animals.
Far smarter people than you, some of the worlds greatest scientists, no less, believe in the Biblical God, and though they may not even realize it, dragons play a prominent role in their religion. Obviously, they are much more than just some walnut brained dinosaur that somehow survied the Cretaceous extinction.
I have never seen an adequate explanation why such a sophisticated and ancient civilization as the Chinese is filled with historical records of people seeing and communicating with dragons, and even imposing laws and regulations how people must interact with them. People all over England reported seeing dragons flying in groups furing certain years. Were they all hallucinating? Like UFOs, these people were seing something, and they universally believed they were dragons. And these people knew what comets were, and even reported UFO like objects identical to those still seen today, but they also reported dragons as a common occurance, and many cities hired people to burn bones to keep the dragons away. Use some common sense, if these dragons were only a figment of imagination, why do these sighting persist from the earliest recorded human documents to essentially, todays headlines. People stopped believing in giants and cyclops becasue no one ever saw these, but they always believed in dragons because dragons have always been seen. Calling them more acceptable names in the 21st century doesn't change the fact that if they were seen 200 years ago, they would all be called dragons.
LOL
LOL im not sure i have ever posted a wikilink, maybe one or two out of the many many....nor do i ape anybody, my opinions are my own. but ta you made me laugh...and not for the first time.....
the han dragon you posted is closely matched by the later tang dragon, how does your explaination fit with my earlier posts about the earliest depictions of dragons in chinese artefacts? earlier than the han by 4000 yrs.
I think my explaination, given to you months ago on another now defunkt thread still stands. Totem animals. and now ive looked into it further i see there is a weight of academic opinion to the same effect. i refer you to some of my earlier posts in this thread.
your style of rant is not convincing.
asto the evidence that you have provided here and previously, i have dealt with it in the past....unreliable.
your misuse of materials is unconvincing.
please name one sighting since the invention of the camera.....reliable ones....
please provide photographic evidence, it shouldnt be difficult since people see them all the time LOL
can you provide evidence of a sighting in britain that isnt from a victorian bedtime compendium?
although you are happy to accept that the religion of the mesopotamium cultures migrated west and changed as it did so, evolving into the judaic and christian theologies, why can you not consider that the concept of dragon evolved also?
what modern academics support your theory?
EDIT: furthermore, the dragons you claim to be the same, are clearly not. Similar is not the same, particularly since people were supposedly so close to them.
judging by the size of the sumerian ones depicted id love one as a pet, wouldnt be scared of it at all. it looks rather cute....and these are the source of gigantic fiery, interdimensional surfboards of god???? oooo scary.
do you not understand symbolism and mythology?
QUOTE
As usual Grem, you have no idea what you are talking about. You parrot Wiki articles from people who are as cluesless as you.
LOL im not sure i have ever posted a wikilink, maybe one or two out of the many many....nor do i ape anybody, my opinions are my own. but ta you made me laugh...and not for the first time.....
the han dragon you posted is closely matched by the later tang dragon, how does your explaination fit with my earlier posts about the earliest depictions of dragons in chinese artefacts? earlier than the han by 4000 yrs.
I think my explaination, given to you months ago on another now defunkt thread still stands. Totem animals. and now ive looked into it further i see there is a weight of academic opinion to the same effect. i refer you to some of my earlier posts in this thread.
your style of rant is not convincing.
asto the evidence that you have provided here and previously, i have dealt with it in the past....unreliable.
your misuse of materials is unconvincing.
please name one sighting since the invention of the camera.....reliable ones....
please provide photographic evidence, it shouldnt be difficult since people see them all the time LOL
can you provide evidence of a sighting in britain that isnt from a victorian bedtime compendium?
although you are happy to accept that the religion of the mesopotamium cultures migrated west and changed as it did so, evolving into the judaic and christian theologies, why can you not consider that the concept of dragon evolved also?
what modern academics support your theory?
EDIT: furthermore, the dragons you claim to be the same, are clearly not. Similar is not the same, particularly since people were supposedly so close to them.
judging by the size of the sumerian ones depicted id love one as a pet, wouldnt be scared of it at all. it looks rather cute....and these are the source of gigantic fiery, interdimensional surfboards of god???? oooo scary.
do you not understand symbolism and mythology?
oh i forgot to address one point, and decided to include it in a seperate post because it deserves it.
you say that the sumerian dragon depicts the real deal, and that only later were fantasy bits added.....also you say that except for the 'stylized wings' the han depiction and the sumerian are identical, proof of your theory...
but then you say that medieval and later sightings report great winged beasties,
these pterasaurs look nothing like plesiosaurs, and neither look like the earlier real deal dragons of the sumerians and han.
your right, the logic of your theory does beggar belief.
were they using their stylized wings? or pterosaur type wings? These stories of 'actual sightings' do not corroborate your claims....unreliable though they are.
you say that the sumerian dragon depicts the real deal, and that only later were fantasy bits added.....also you say that except for the 'stylized wings' the han depiction and the sumerian are identical, proof of your theory...
but then you say that medieval and later sightings report great winged beasties,
QUOTE
The only plausible conclusion is that both groups of peoples and those in many other places besides, saw and recorded the same creature. Only many hundreds of years later would the different peoples of the world conconct less realistic versions of dragons drawn from memories and cultural traits, instead of actual sightings like the ancient representations.
QUOTE
dragons are still constantly being seen, only now they go by more "acceptaple names like pterosaurs or plesiosaurs. They are still on of the most prevalent of all cryptic animals.
these pterasaurs look nothing like plesiosaurs, and neither look like the earlier real deal dragons of the sumerians and han.
QUOTE
though all of this seems to be beyond your comprehension.
your right, the logic of your theory does beggar belief.
QUOTE
People all over England reported seeing dragons flying in groups furing certain years. Were they all hallucinating?
were they using their stylized wings? or pterosaur type wings? These stories of 'actual sightings' do not corroborate your claims....unreliable though they are.
QUOTE(draconic chronicler @ Apr 27 2007, 12:31 PM) [snapback]1648301[/snapback]
As usual Grem, you have no idea what you are talking about. You parrot Wiki articles from people who are as clueless as you.
The early chinese dragons such as the one I posted blast the "composite totem animal theory" to pieces. These early dragons bear no resemblence to the much later chinese fantasy dragons made up of various body parts of mammals, birds fish and reptiles. Instead, save for the sylized wings, they are simply a kind of quadreped similar to dinosaurs, believed an illustrated long before anyone knew how to reconstruct a prehistoric creature, though all of this seems to be beyond your comprehension.
This dragon is virtually identical to ancient Sumerian dragons and there is no evidence of these peoples being in contact during such ancient times. And then there are surprising similar ancient mayan dragons, but I suppose you think all of these widely seperated peoples shared pictures of mythical dragons between themselve during jaunts in their flying saucers. And if these are supposely composites of animals people feared the most, as one antrhopologist rather stupidly remarked, why are they then worshipped as beneficent bringers of civilization? These people you invent this nonsense cannot answer these questions.
The only plausible conclusion is that both groups of peoples and those in many other places besides, saw and recorded the same creature. Only many hundreds of years later would the different peoples of the world conconct less realistic versions of dragons drawn from memories and cultural traits, instead of actual sightings like the ancient representations. Though as I said before, dragons are still constantly being seen, only now they go by more "acceptaple names like pterosaurs or plesiosaurs. They are still on of the most prevalent of all cryptic animals.
Far smarter people than you, some of the worlds greatest scientists, no less, believe in the Biblical God, and though they may not even realize it, dragons play a prominent role in their religion. Obviously, they are much more than just some walnut brained dinosaur that somehow survied the Cretaceous extinction.
I have never seen an adequate explanation why such a sophisticated and ancient civilization as the Chinese is filled with historical records of people seeing and communicating with dragons, and even imposing laws and regulations how people must interact with them. People all over England reported seeing dragons flying in groups furing certain years. Were they all hallucinating? Like UFOs, these people were seing something, and they universally believed they were dragons. And these people knew what comets were, and even reported UFO like objects identical to those still seen today, but they also reported dragons as a common occurance, and many cities hired people to burn bones to keep the dragons away. Use some common sense, if these dragons were only a figment of imagination, why do these sighting persist from the earliest recorded human documents to essentially, todays headlines. People stopped believing in giants and cyclops becasue no one ever saw these, but they always believed in dragons because dragons have always been seen. Calling them more acceptable names in the 21st century doesn't change the fact that if they were seen 200 years ago, they would all be called dragons.
The early chinese dragons such as the one I posted blast the "composite totem animal theory" to pieces. These early dragons bear no resemblence to the much later chinese fantasy dragons made up of various body parts of mammals, birds fish and reptiles. Instead, save for the sylized wings, they are simply a kind of quadreped similar to dinosaurs, believed an illustrated long before anyone knew how to reconstruct a prehistoric creature, though all of this seems to be beyond your comprehension.
This dragon is virtually identical to ancient Sumerian dragons and there is no evidence of these peoples being in contact during such ancient times. And then there are surprising similar ancient mayan dragons, but I suppose you think all of these widely seperated peoples shared pictures of mythical dragons between themselve during jaunts in their flying saucers. And if these are supposely composites of animals people feared the most, as one antrhopologist rather stupidly remarked, why are they then worshipped as beneficent bringers of civilization? These people you invent this nonsense cannot answer these questions.
The only plausible conclusion is that both groups of peoples and those in many other places besides, saw and recorded the same creature. Only many hundreds of years later would the different peoples of the world conconct less realistic versions of dragons drawn from memories and cultural traits, instead of actual sightings like the ancient representations. Though as I said before, dragons are still constantly being seen, only now they go by more "acceptaple names like pterosaurs or plesiosaurs. They are still on of the most prevalent of all cryptic animals.
Far smarter people than you, some of the worlds greatest scientists, no less, believe in the Biblical God, and though they may not even realize it, dragons play a prominent role in their religion. Obviously, they are much more than just some walnut brained dinosaur that somehow survied the Cretaceous extinction.
I have never seen an adequate explanation why such a sophisticated and ancient civilization as the Chinese is filled with historical records of people seeing and communicating with dragons, and even imposing laws and regulations how people must interact with them. People all over England reported seeing dragons flying in groups furing certain years. Were they all hallucinating? Like UFOs, these people were seing something, and they universally believed they were dragons. And these people knew what comets were, and even reported UFO like objects identical to those still seen today, but they also reported dragons as a common occurance, and many cities hired people to burn bones to keep the dragons away. Use some common sense, if these dragons were only a figment of imagination, why do these sighting persist from the earliest recorded human documents to essentially, todays headlines. People stopped believing in giants and cyclops becasue no one ever saw these, but they always believed in dragons because dragons have always been seen. Calling them more acceptable names in the 21st century doesn't change the fact that if they were seen 200 years ago, they would all be called dragons.
DC I do not think this onslaught helps your case too much. If you wish to convince someone that your facts are correct, surely there is a better way. You have always been an angry man haven't you?
Sumeria is considered the worlds first civilisation. If a story was to proliferate throughout history and be widespread, it would make sense to start at the begining wouldn't it? To me it seems no wonder that if a legend was started in mans first civilisation, where record where kept for the first time, that it would only spread to the rest of the world. Commerce, travel etc.
Beliving in a Biblical (Christian) God does not mean someone has to beleve in dragons. They hardly make a prominent contirbution to the main ideals, the average Christian would not even be aware that any refrence exists. Anybody can see the Bible is meant to be interprative, or we would have all perished by now wouldn't we?
I also do not think that becase the Chinese have vey old legends that they are true. The legend of the bunyip goes back far (Granted oz Legend, still ancient and believed by the indigenous people). I've not seen one yet. What about Nuwa and Fuxi ? Fuxi killed a black Dragon Is this definitive proof that half snake, half human creatures exist? If one slayed this black dragon, than it goes along that the slayer should exist too. Very old Chinese legend that one.
I do not think the support for the existance of Dragons exists among the masses. Very much a minority group these days.
I am willing to look at any proof you have to the contrary, and would like to read your book. You say many present day sightings take place, could you please outline some credible ones for us. I would be more than interested to see evidence that has convinced you to such an absolute.
Many Gods over the history of modern man have been worshipped as beneficent bringers of civilization. Heck, even today whacko scientologists tell us about galactic wars waged 23 trillion years ago. Entertainment has also been with us since well before the written word. It is supposed that even Neandertalis enjoyed humour. We all love to laugh, cry and smile. It's what we are. More acceptable names like pterosaurs or plesiosaurs are really not at all acceptable. These creatures died out 65 million years ago. Any claims that they exist are immediately met with a healthy dose of skeptisism, and rightly so. Did you know the world population 100 years ago was 1 billion? China alone has more than that now. We spread pretty quickly as a species. And word spreads faster.
Havng posted a somewhat opposing view, I will say this: I do find you views interesting and well structured. As I said, I would like to read your book and see what has convinced you to an absolute conclusion.
ive been through this with dc before psyche, over many threads...im ok with his tone, and do goad him a bit... 
his opinion on some things is sound, though how he ties theories together does not hold up. but thats just my opinion, you may find his theories quite credible. At worst it makes for entertaining reading...at best it may stimulate you to investigate his sources and use of them.
a good search of the previous threads should bring u upto speed....it does get a bit heated at times tho...
regards.
his opinion on some things is sound, though how he ties theories together does not hold up. but thats just my opinion, you may find his theories quite credible. At worst it makes for entertaining reading...at best it may stimulate you to investigate his sources and use of them.
a good search of the previous threads should bring u upto speed....it does get a bit heated at times tho...
regards.
QUOTE(lil gremlin @ Apr 27 2007, 01:38 PM) [snapback]1648385[/snapback]
ive been through this with dc before psyche, over many threads...im ok with his tone, and do goad him a bit...
his opinion on some things is sound, though how he ties theories together does not hold up. but thats just my opinion, you may find his theories quite credible. At worst it makes for entertaining reading...at best it may stimulate you to investigate his sources and use of them.
a good search of the previous threads should bring u upto speed....it does get a bit heated at times tho...
regards.
his opinion on some things is sound, though how he ties theories together does not hold up. but thats just my opinion, you may find his theories quite credible. At worst it makes for entertaining reading...at best it may stimulate you to investigate his sources and use of them.
a good search of the previous threads should bring u upto speed....it does get a bit heated at times tho...
regards.
Thanks bud
I have seen many of DC's posts before, and I still think he is a very angry man LOL. He gives me a revving on the odd occasion too, generally completely unfounded I might add. I also think some of his views are sound, but this adversarial approach just gets him offside, and I think his views would recieve more support with a less agressive approach. I do not know that I would entertain his theories, but sure would like to read them for myself. There must be something that has him so convinced. All his replies in here rarely seem to be backed by links to reputable sources, it always appears to be, take my word for it, I'm right you know. That just is not enough for me................
QUOTE(Celumnaz @ Apr 26 2007, 02:00 PM) [snapback]1647569[/snapback]
"We found that the photosynthesis-related genes in these organisms have not had all the same pathway of evolution. It's clear evidence for horizontal gene transfer," said Blankenship.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/...21122074236.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/gautam/hind0006.htm (was human cloning known to vedic sages?)
(Hindu and Christian religions talk about it, as well as Many other religious texts)
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/11/61210 "An ancient ear of corn shows that farmers made drastic genetic modifications to corn at least 4,400 years ago."
anything to do with the "ancient astronauts" theories usually gets to that point
I don't think our ancestors were complete idiots, and even if they were I still think there were other civilizations before humanity and/or some form of "divine intervention" (be it aliens or gods or whatever)... and accidents, maybe didn't Mean to do what they did but hit that 1 in 30 trillion chance.
While I'm positive Issis2200 and I do not see eye to eye on some other issue, it should be clear we're not the only two individuals to consider this possibility.
Maybe I *am* too open minded, but I still believe it's entirely possible at the very least.
too bad none of us were there
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/...21122074236.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/gautam/hind0006.htm (was human cloning known to vedic sages?)
(Hindu and Christian religions talk about it, as well as Many other religious texts)
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/11/61210 "An ancient ear of corn shows that farmers made drastic genetic modifications to corn at least 4,400 years ago."
anything to do with the "ancient astronauts" theories usually gets to that point
I don't think our ancestors were complete idiots, and even if they were I still think there were other civilizations before humanity and/or some form of "divine intervention" (be it aliens or gods or whatever)... and accidents, maybe didn't Mean to do what they did but hit that 1 in 30 trillion chance.
While I'm positive Issis2200 and I do not see eye to eye on some other issue, it should be clear we're not the only two individuals to consider this possibility.
Maybe I *am* too open minded, but I still believe it's entirely possible at the very least.
too bad none of us were there
Hi Celumnaz: I think you're absolutely right; our ancestors were not complete idiots, but again we see people posting that this is nonsense on a lot of topics of this kind without even reading a book or listening to a lecture or doing any type of research on the subject. But time and time again we see them blurting out at every chance "That's wrong", "That's completely ridiculous." I know there are mature respectful people in this forum, like yourself, who may disagree but they do it respectfully, instead of being immature and blurting out "This is the biggest load of garbage I've heard in a long time." As they continue to do this, it just proves my point over and over again.
Celumnaz, I agree that our ancestors were not idiots, and if one believes in the writings of Zechariah Sitchin, the Annunaki who came to the Earth knew and implemented genetic engineering practices to create Homo Sapiens(sapiens means "wise or intelligent). Furthermore, I believe aliens are superior to Mankind technologically. So whatever technology we have discovered(such as genetic engineering), the aliens have already discovered. I believe they are so much ahead of us in many ways.
QUOTE(Isis2200 @ Apr 27 2007, 01:53 PM) [snapback]1648403[/snapback]
Hi Celumnaz: I think you're absolutely right; our ancestors were not complete idiots, but again we see people posting that this is nonsense on a lot of topics of this kind without even reading a book or listening to a lecture or doing any type of research on the subject. But time and time again we see them blurting out at every chance "That's wrong", "That's completely ridiculous." I know there are mature respectful people in this forum, like yourself, who may disagree but they do it respectfully, instead of being immature and blurting out "This is the biggest load of garbage I've heard in a long time." As they continue to do this, it just proves my point over and over again.
Celumnaz, I agree that our ancestors were not idiots, and if one believes in the writings of Zecharia Sitchin, the Annunaki who came to the Earth knew and implemented genetic engineering practices to create Homo Sapiens(sapiens means "wise or intelligent). Furthermore, I believe aliens are superior to Mankind technologically. So whatever technology we have discovered(such as genetic engineering), the aliens have already discovered. I believe they are so much ahead of us in many ways.
Celumnaz, I agree that our ancestors were not idiots, and if one believes in the writings of Zecharia Sitchin, the Annunaki who came to the Earth knew and implemented genetic engineering practices to create Homo Sapiens(sapiens means "wise or intelligent). Furthermore, I believe aliens are superior to Mankind technologically. So whatever technology we have discovered(such as genetic engineering), the aliens have already discovered. I believe they are so much ahead of us in many ways.
I agree with you guys on this one
People who say NOT POSSIBLE without structured debate or back up proof of some description are as bad as those who make the initial wild claim.Stops there though
The above links are really clutching at straws. To say hat a Hindi legend of walking out of a fire is proof of genetic engineering, or cross pollenating plants is hardly comparable to cloning a species. Surely you too see that the link between them is quite a stretch.
Ancestors idiots, ?? Who could say that??? What man has accomplished is amazing. Homnids have crawled form the mire and reached other planets!!! It seems quite a feat for idiots. Genetic engineering in the stone age is expecting a bit much though.
As for other species proliferating the planet before "we" came along, how do you explain the geologic and fossil records?
By the way - who is "they". We have never had contact with alien species form other worlds. How could you possibly conclude that "they" even exist?
First of all isnt this a topic about dragons yes?
i thought it wasnt about challenging the information but excepting it even if it and i think i speak for most people aload of utter crap!? would you think?
Regards Astaroth
i thought it wasnt about challenging the information but excepting it even if it and i think i speak for most people aload of utter crap!? would you think?
Regards Astaroth
Would be awesome if they did exist but i'm afraid they don't.
I think you underestimate the ability for information to travel in ancient times. Yeah, it may take a thousand years with a European tribe migrating east, trading their dragon-pictures/stories with another tribe, and that tribe migrating east some more, but eventually the dragon legends/pictures *will* spread to other cultures. It becomes even easier if you consider a more focal point like the Middle East, which has access to both Asia and Europe.
Saying "This guy over here saw a dragon and so did this guy 10,000 miles away saw one too so they must be real" is just ignoring how long of a timeline information has to travel.
Saying "This guy over here saw a dragon and so did this guy 10,000 miles away saw one too so they must be real" is just ignoring how long of a timeline information has to travel.
and in the case of the Sumerians and the Han its THOUSANDS of years.
That's rich, a christian accusing the general public of being brainwashed by misinformation.
I could not agree more, I though the same thing.
A healthy skepticism is essential in my opinion, many people will believe anything if it's written in a way that is understandable. It's not unreasonable to want some proof beyond hearsay and a few very low quality pictures of unidentified objects.
Not that amazing if you are familiar with the concept of archetypes, it could also be argued that both of these figures emerged from artistic conceptions of reptile like monsters. I can see how a foreign species could be throughly confused by some of the art we have created and drawing the line between what is made in the image of reality and what is a work of fiction without a primary source to directly confirm of deny this.
As for these dragons on the web site in question, I remain skeptical as there still is no solid evidence. Also it seems strange that these oddities are not so common now our technology has advanced and I would assume that identifying and unidentifiable carcass would be far more simple.
QUOTE(Mad Manfred @ Apr 23 2007, 02:48 PM) [snapback]1641940[/snapback]
All "evidence" aside, whoever wrote that is the most condescending a******* on the internet.
I could not agree more, I though the same thing.
QUOTE(Nephilim_Slayer @ Apr 23 2007, 03:20 PM) [snapback]1641963[/snapback]
Also I'd like to add this; I don't understand some of you on this site...it's called UNEXPLAINED MYSTERIES for a reason. You come on a site that is going to have strange content to just immediatly say "Dragonz dontz existz man" why don't you think? because you havent seen one? Because mainstream media says they don't?
A healthy skepticism is essential in my opinion, many people will believe anything if it's written in a way that is understandable. It's not unreasonable to want some proof beyond hearsay and a few very low quality pictures of unidentified objects.
QUOTE(FTW @ Apr 24 2007, 01:48 PM) [snapback]1643464[/snapback]
I find it most interesting how cultures the world over have images and descriptions of dragon's that are so similar but yet these people would have had no contact with each other..
It always amazes me how painful it is for some to have an open mind.
It always amazes me how painful it is for some to have an open mind.
Not that amazing if you are familiar with the concept of archetypes, it could also be argued that both of these figures emerged from artistic conceptions of reptile like monsters. I can see how a foreign species could be throughly confused by some of the art we have created and drawing the line between what is made in the image of reality and what is a work of fiction without a primary source to directly confirm of deny this.
As for these dragons on the web site in question, I remain skeptical as there still is no solid evidence. Also it seems strange that these oddities are not so common now our technology has advanced and I would assume that identifying and unidentifiable carcass would be far more simple.
QUOTE
Hehe, glad you used the term mister sonny
Of course many are against it. Once reality comes along and slaps them in the face with a big wet fish, their thinking will change
I have read many, many books based in fantasy. I have also read many non-fiction books as well. Believe it or not, pick the right non-fiction book, and it can be quite entertaining. You will find with time how to better distinguish fact from fiction in a far easier and quicker manner. This forum is to discuss mysteries, not fairytales. With time, reading your non-fiction will help you to understand how you are confusing this world with reality, and why the two just do not mix.
I understand fantasy, and I understand reality. I think it might be prudet that you stick your head back into some non-fiction for a while. Then you will see why this "age" you believe in has never existed. How's this for a deal, whilst I read "The Never Ending Story" or "Lord of the Rings" (incidently, I read this 24 years ago, well before it was popular in cinemas, as well as "The Hobbit", ) and you promise to get your head into some seriously scientific literature
What do you say - deal?
Of course many are against it. Once reality comes along and slaps them in the face with a big wet fish, their thinking will change
I have read many, many books based in fantasy. I have also read many non-fiction books as well. Believe it or not, pick the right non-fiction book, and it can be quite entertaining. You will find with time how to better distinguish fact from fiction in a far easier and quicker manner. This forum is to discuss mysteries, not fairytales. With time, reading your non-fiction will help you to understand how you are confusing this world with reality, and why the two just do not mix.
I understand fantasy, and I understand reality. I think it might be prudet that you stick your head back into some non-fiction for a while. Then you will see why this "age" you believe in has never existed. How's this for a deal, whilst I read "The Never Ending Story" or "Lord of the Rings" (incidently, I read this 24 years ago, well before it was popular in cinemas, as well as "The Hobbit", ) and you promise to get your head into some seriously scientific literature
What do you say - deal?
I am looking forword to reading serious scientific literature in the near future so i guess its a deal. I believe we know only a very little of Earths history and mysteries so lets not all be too sure of ourselves either way.
The site claims that the Coelacanth (more specifically Latimeria) has remained unevolved for 410 million years (when the Coelacanths first appeared) - which is just ridiculous since the species in existence are different from the many extinct forms... Oh, and that site is hilarious. I laughed. No, really--
QUOTE
How do we get so deceived folks? I'll tell you why! It's for the same reason why we get so conditioned to disbelieve that a massive flood once covered the earth some 4.400 years ago, which, by the way, is the real reason for the decimation of most dragons & mammoths. And that scenario even has historical support in all kinds of ancient documents like the Bible, Quran, Gilgamesh Epic, and many other similar Flood & Ark scenarios in the historical legends of the Chinese, Incas and almost every darn ancient nation on the face of the earth!
QUOTE(Nephilim_Slayer @ Apr 23 2007, 03:05 PM) [snapback]1641951[/snapback]
You know what else doesn't exist? Respect.......I find your avatar insulting and rude. I'm sure If I had an anti-budha, anti-darwin avatar I would of been PM'd by a mod already.
QUOTE(Nephilim_Slayer @ Apr 23 2007, 03:20 PM) [snapback]1641963[/snapback]
Also I'd like to add this; I don't understand some of you on this site...it's called UNEXPLAINED MYSTERIES for a reason. You come on a site that is going to have strange content to just immediatly say "Dragonz dontz existz man" why don't you think? because you havent seen one? Because mainstream media says they don't? I'm not going to say what I feel about dragons but look shouldnt you have a better approach to this site as hey you know, I don't think they exist, but there is always that chance I could be wrong, and heck maybe they do? Whatever happened to an open-mind nowadays? People are so quick to say "They don't exist" and can give crappy evidence to support why they don't other than they have never seen one. Well thousands of people have and its documented dating back thousands and thousands of years ago. Maybe they don't want to reveal themselves to mankind for certain reasons, like mankind is genuinely not accepting of things that don't look like us and might look "hideous" and they have adapted to avoid humans, maybe like the bigfoot phenomenon. This is a world were truth is stranger than "reality, "believe it or not.
something that does exist, sense, you make it
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.