Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
I'mConvinced

Flying Dinosaurs!

78 posts in this topic

Please have a look at the photo and blog below:

Civil-War-Pterosaur-shot-canoe-like.jpg

http://www.livepterosaurs.com/inamerica/blog/?p=1596

 

I am looking to try and find any information regarding the source of this photo.  There was a similar, but obviously hoaxed, photo produced in 2000 for a TV show called Freakylinks.  This is the photo their hoax seems to have been based on and I have included their recreation below so you can see how hard it is to actually fake this:

Two-photos-that-are-confused.jpg

 

Any info at all would be appreciated! Thanks.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The animals mocked up for the photos are pterosuars not dinosaurs, flying dinosaurs look like this-

Image result for crow

I'm not into archosaurs, but, the 'genuine' photo falls down as it conforms to now outdated ideas about what these animals looked like in life, I'm sure Carnoferox will be along soon to say exactly what's wrong with a lot more knowledge than I have.  

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

42 minutes ago, oldrover said:

The animals mocked up for the photos are pterosuars not dinosaurs, flying dinosaurs look like this-

Image result for crow

I'm not into archosaurs, but, the 'genuine' photo falls down as it conforms to now outdated ideas about what these animals looked like in life, I'm sure Carnoferox will be along soon to say exactly what's wrong with a lot more knowledge than I have.  

Strictly speaking yes, but it doesn't make for a catchy title! 

Some more reading:

https://livepterosaur.wordpress.com/2017/01/16/credibility-of-a-photo-of-a-modern-pterosaur/

There is one piece of evidence that suggests it might be fake but many more suggesting it is not, read on: 

http://pterosaur-ropen.blogspot.co.uk/

Edited by I'mConvinced
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Strictly speaking yes, but it doesn't make for a catchy title! 

Some more reading:

https://livepterosaur.wordpress.com/2017/01/16/credibility-of-a-photo-of-a-modern-pterosaur/

There is one piece of evidence that suggests it might be fake but many more suggesting it is not, read on: 

http://pterosaur-ropen.blogspot.co.uk/

Are you saying you think it might be genuine?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 minutes ago, oldrover said:

Are you saying you think it might be genuine?

I really don't know.  Logic would dictate that it is a fake, analysis is inconclusive.  I'm trying to find the original source for the photo as it is claimed to be old and before photoshop etc.  

It is only due to the analysis of the photo, done this year, that the case has been re-opened (in my mind).  Serious attempts to debunk it have been made but only one piece of evidence that it is possibly fake has emerged and even that has problems.

Edited by I'mConvinced
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where was the photo said to have been from as I would think that they would nest rather high altitude and there hasn't been any resent skeletal remains found that would indicate that they are present in recent years.

jmccr8

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

I really don't know.  Logic would dictate that it is a fake, analysis is inconclusive.  I'm trying to find the original source for the photo as it is claimed to be old and before photoshop etc.  

It is only due to the analysis of the photo, done this year, that the case has been re-opened (in my mind).  Serious attempts to debunk it have been made but only one piece of evidence that it is possibly fake has emerged and even that has problems.

Well, the animal in the photo is inconsistent with what a pteranadon would have looked like apparently, but I'm no expert on these things so I can't say that definitely, but it is definitely consistent with the popular picture of what one would have looked like. Similar sort of anatomical errors found in 'live plesiosaur' photos and accounts. 

As for when the photo first appeared, who is it that's saying it was before Photoshop, and can anyone point to a date proving this? Until such time, it's not worth considering the possibility that this might be the case. 

As for the possibility of a pteranadon surviving undetected into the 1860's that's not worth considering.

Personally, and again I'm no expert, but the guy's foot on the animal's beak looks as genuine as £3 coin. 

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see now where the pre Photoshop idea seems to come from, someone's trying to say this is the legendary 'thunderbird photo' which people did claim to see from the 60's onward. It's not, firstly that photo itself probably* never existed, and the story of what it showed wasn't a dead pteranadon, but a large bird nailed to a barn door. It's totally unconnected, so you can rule out any source that tries to confuse the two. 

* I say probably not definitely, because there are about 9,00,000,000 photos claiming to be it, one of which I think may be the original hoax photo that started it. 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Where was the photo said to have been from as I would think that they would nest rather high altitude and there hasn't been any resent skeletal remains found that would indicate that they are present in recent years.

jmccr8

No one knows, some people claim having seen it published in a magazine in 1960-1970 period.

13 minutes ago, oldrover said:

Personally, and again I'm no expert, but the guy's foot on the animal's beak looks as genuine as £3 coin.

Did you have a look at the photo analysis (terrible webpage I know but..)? 

http://pterosaur-ropen.blogspot.co.uk/

The biggest problem is the identical wing markings but the rest of the photo holds up and even the person carrying out the work admits there could be other explanations.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that anyone beginning by placing genuine on a photo is pushing a bit hard.

What I can't find is the origin of the photo other than a claim it is from the Civil War. You can see that the people in it are wearing Civil War uniforms, Union army uniforms.

The background does not show much in terms of location. I suspect that the plants are western riparian vegetation.

This is a large animal. It must have been easily observed and from miles away. Even I can identify a bald eagle from 2 miles away with the unaided eye. This animal would  be seen to something other than the usual birds probably at a distance of 10 miles, maybe more. So how does this creature go unnoticed? Maybe it did not fly. That would certainly reduce its visibility.

The analyses tell me no more than a photo was taken.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See above for the 60's-7₩'s thing. By the way, do you know the story if the 'thunderbird photo's? It's as mysterious as the animal it's supposed to show.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

No one knows, some people claim having seen it published in a magazine in 1960-1970 period.

Did you have a look at the photo analysis (terrible webpage I know but..)? 

http://pterosaur-ropen.blogspot.co.uk/

The biggest problem is the identical wing markings but the rest of the photo holds up and even the person carrying out the work admits there could be other explanations.

To me the biggest problem, obviously other than it shows an animal 66,000,000 years out of era, is the shape of the wing tips, they're pointy in that photo, in life according to a pterosaur expert who I won't name because I can't remember exactly what he said, they were rounded. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This comes from Jonathan Whitcomb, a noted young earth creationist and proponent of living pterosaurs who in reality knows jack-s*** about pterosaurs.

https://www.skeptic.com/insight/fake-pterosaurs-and-sock-puppets/

The creature in this photo may resemble Pteranodon, but in reality it does not conform to known anatomy (especially in the skull). It's your typical pop culture pterosaur.

Dale Drinnon has pointed out a lot of suspicious things with this photo as well that indicate digital manipulation.

http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2012/05/surviving-plesiosaurs-and-pterosaurs.html 

Edited by Carnoferox
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@I'mConvinced

Honestly, if I were you I wouldn't even bother with any living pterosaur stuff. It's all a bunch of crap.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I'd like the photo to be genuine, I think there also would've been a few newspaper accounts from that era. Any photographer with a picture like that one would have gone to every newspaper in the country to get it published.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

This comes from Jonathan Whitcomb, a noted young earth creationist and proponent of living pterosaurs who in reality knows jack-s*** about pterosaurs.

https://www.skeptic.com/insight/fake-pterosaurs-and-sock-puppets/

The creature in this photo may resemble Pteranodon, but in reality it does not conform to known anatomy (especially in the skull). It's your typical pop culture pterosaur.

Dale Drinnon has pointed out a lot of suspicious things with this photo as well that indicate digital manipulation.

http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2012/05/surviving-plesiosaurs-and-pterosaurs.html 

I'd just like to say that the fingers missing from the rifle is fairly well explained already.  I am unsure what he is pointing out as a halo effect though because it doesn't appear that way to me and isn't on each soldier, as you would expect if they were cut out.

This was said about the missing fingers:

Quote

 

But it’s the first “red flag” that especially caught my attention:

“. . . the lack of fingers grasping the rifle held by one alleged soldier” [spelling corrected]

Woops! That detail (appearing on the surface to damage the photo’s credibility) actually might shoot down all three of the red flags, indirectly strengthening the case for the authenticity of this photo. The skeptic accidentally shot himself in the foot.

If anyone wanted to create a realistic hoax, for whatever reason, that appeared to be a photograph of a modern pterosaur, what would be needed? Create a realistic-looking pterosaur. The people standing around a recently-deceased pterodactyl—they would be far less important, hardly worth any trouble.

Why would anyone paste an image of a rifle onto a photograph of Civil War soldiers? Those guys already had rifles. Look at the whole picture, noticing the six soldiers holding rifles. It shows eight hands grasping those six rifles. What is the best explanation for that one hand that apparently has no fingers in front of the rifle? Take your pick, but it’s definitely not from anybody trying to create a fake pterosaur.

Notice that this hand is by far the closest (of those eight hands) to an edge of the photo. Maybe the development process had not become completed near that edge. Maybe better photographic development would have allowed those fingers to show up. But we have other possible explanations.

Is it hard to imagine that one out of eight hands holding rifles would actually have no fingers going around a rifle? Maybe one soldier had a blister on one hand.

A skeptic has pointed to those missing fingers as if evidence that the whole photograph is a hoax. If it proves anything, it is more likely the opposite. But coming to a knowledge of the truth sometimes requires digging into the details, using “the little grey cells.”

Look again at the soldier on the far left. Why would any man hold his arm out like that, as if he had a rifle, if he did not have a rifle? It doesn’t matter if he’s a real Civil War soldier or an actor imitating one. The man obviously had a gun when the photo was taken, regardless of where he put his fingers.

The skeptic said that this apparent Civil War photograph had multiple red flags indicating the “almost certain work of photoshop.” The first “red flag” is that hand that does not show any fingers. Now consider why a person would manipulate a photograph in such a way that those fingers would accidentally go missing. The obvious purpose would be this: to remove those fingers from a genuine photo so that it could be made to look like a hoax photo.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

@I'mConvinced

Honestly, if I were you I wouldn't even bother with any living pterosaur stuff. It's all a bunch of crap.

Ahh it's just the mystery of it.  I'm happy for the photo to be debunked but I'm fascinated as to how and why it was done and by whom? 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

I'd just like to say that the fingers missing from the rifle is fairly well explained already.  I am unsure what he is pointing out as a halo effect though because it doesn't appear that way to me and isn't on each soldier, as you would expect if they were cut out.

This was said about the missing fingers:

 

And this comes straight from the horse's mouth, Jonathan Whitcomb himself.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Carnoferox said:

And this comes straight from the horse's mouth, Jonathan Whitcomb himself.

So I see! Interesting.  

So if this guy is a creationist then why is he trying to fake the existence of things that would disprove his theory? Unless he has some crazy idea that saying these things still exist proves his creationist argument? 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, I'mConvinced said:

So I see! Interesting.  

So if this guy is a creationist then why is he trying to fake the existence of things that would disprove his theory? Unless he has some crazy idea that saying these things still exist proves his creationist argument? 

You hit the nail on the head there. As far as Whitcomb is concerned, finding a living pterosaur would somehow disprove evolution.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Carnoferox said:

You hit the nail on the head there. As far as Whitcomb is concerned, finding a living pterosaur would somehow disprove evolution.

Well that is indeed a strange theory, I'll go read up on his reasoning.  

If I am honest about what I'm doing here it might help - I'm actually working on research for an article over at www.skeptoid.com and this photo was perfect fodder.  Brian himself was unable to find any decent information about the origin of this photo and so I thought I'd put UM to task and provide a somewhat interesting thread to boot.  Seems I have some reporting to do!  

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

12 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

So I see! Interesting.  

So if this guy is a creationist then why is he trying to fake the existence of things that would disprove his theory? Unless he has some crazy idea that saying these things still exist proves his creationist argument? 

For some reason Creationists 'think' that evolution requires certain animals, usually from the Mesazoic, be extinct. They don't tend to notice that science accepts that around 10,000 diinosaur species are around today. Personalky I think they pick on the Mesozoic so much because dinosaur books have lots of pictures in them, or at least mine did. And I might add to Carnoferox, they were proper pictures too, with swamps and volcanoes. 

But it does seem odd doesn't it, that creationists are so keen on finding living pterosaur, but that's just something they do. See the entire ropen business.

Edited by oldrover
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, I'mConvinced said:

Well that is indeed a strange theory, I'll go read up on his reasoning.  

If I am honest about what I'm doing here it might help - I'm actually working on research for an article over at www.skeptoid.com and this photo was perfect fodder.  Brian himself was unable to find any decent information about the origin of this photo and so I thought I'd put UM to task and provide a somewhat interesting thread to boot.  Seems I have some reporting to do!  

I'll look forward to the article. Could you post a link when it's done?

Also here's some paleontologists' perspectives on living pterosaurs for reference:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dont-get-strung-along-by-the-ropen-myth-78644354/

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/12/23/pterosaurs-alive

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Carnoferox said:

I'll look forward to the article. Could you post a link when it's done?

Also here's some paleontologists' perspectives on living pterosaurs for reference:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dont-get-strung-along-by-the-ropen-myth-78644354/

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/12/23/pterosaurs-alive

Thanks! first I've got to gather enough evidence to convince them to write it but I will surely post a link if they do.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 minutes ago, oldrover said:

They don't tend to notice that science accepts that around 10,000 diinosaur species are around today. Personalky I think they pick on the Mesozoic so much because dinosaur books have lots of pictures in them, or at least mine did. And I might add to Carnoferox, they were proper pictures too, with swamps and volcanoes.

I love Burian's artwork too, but damn it's been the inspiration for pretty much any living dinosaur/pterosaur/plesiosaur BS in the last 60 years.

Edited by Carnoferox
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.