Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

[Merged] Giant Flying Serpents Of the 1860's


draconic chronicler

Recommended Posts

Don't know why it is, but I have just always been fascinated by the idea of flying creatures/serpants or creatures that generally dwell in the sky/clouds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 669
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • draconic chronicler

    153

  • makaya325

    58

  • Agent. Mulder

    35

  • louis_last

    34

That's nice, but unfortunately it does not explain all of the eyewitness accounts of such creatures all over the world and for thousands of years. In virtually every culture the stories talk of people interacting with these creatures, not simply that they were something that lived before their time.

It may actually be more "childish" to simply ignore all of the evidence. Paleontology has now proven that gigantic reptiles can fly, so people cannot use that excuse any more.

I do agree that your fantasy of being able to kill such a creature in a medieval setting is the stuff of fairytales however..

Dragon in a way i was kind agreeing with you and when I wrote this i had just woking up and was still like bleh. What i was trying to say was when you start to let go of your imagination you become a normal person. It is people Like you an I who make this world intresting, you still beilieve in things that a child would, People who are captivated by the secrets of this world, if people let go of there imagination all threw history we wouldent have the light bulb tv or anything we have today. People like you DC who firmly beilive dragons exist are what this world needs. I am with you one hundred percent DC. I feel that they could be very much real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from dc's link

In 2002, E. Buffetaut and friends revealed yet-another poorly-known but clearly gigantic azhdarchid to the world: Hatzegopteryx. This animal, from Late Cretaceous deposits of Transylvania, is only represented by scrappy skull and limb material, but is thought to have spanned at least 12 m and, by my estimation, stands about 3 m tall at the shoulder. Thing is, while the remains of Quetzalcoatlus and Arambourgiania hint at relatively slender, lithe creatures, Hatzegopteryx is built like the proverbial fired-clay outbuilding. What little is known of its jaw is massively constructed and indicates a skull width of at least 50 cm. That’s half a metre. I’m barely 50 cm across my shoulders: Hatzegopteryx could probably swallow me, a fully grown, 23-year old man, whole. If we scaled this up to the skull proportions of the small Quetzalcoatlus, we’d have a skull 5 m long. Now, because skulls of this size are typically reserved for monstrous marine reptiles or filter-feeding whales, it’s thought that these estimates may be a bit wrong. However, even more conservative estimates of 2.5 m give Hatzegopteryx one of the longest skulls of any land-based animal, and certainly the largest of any flier. It also bears thought that the record holders for the longest skulls of land animals, the elaborately frilled horned-dinosaurs, are cheating to get their place in the record books by having much of their skull length occupied by accessory frill. The length of the Hatzegopteryx skull is almost entirely jaw, however, making it more comparable with the long-jawed skulls of big predatory dinosaurs like Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus. Seeing as the latter has a skull of around 1.8 m length, it appears that a twiglet-boned, lanky pterosaur had longer jaws than any dinosaur. Who’d have thought it?

Alas, the rest of Hatzegopteryx is virtually unknown. We have the occipital region (the part of the skull that connects with the neck), which is deeply-sculpted for anchoring powerful neck-elevating ligaments and muscles. The humerus is poorly preserved but comparatively more robust than that of the giant Quetzalcoatlus. That’s about it, but the bottom line is clear: Hatzegopteryx was absolutely enormous and it remains the largest pterosaur we know of. In fact, I have it on good authority that, based on our current understanding of pterosaur biomechanics, the pterosaur skeleton would have to be dramatically altered to facilitate much larger forms. Despite this, there were rumblings in 2005, however, of an even larger pterosaur being found. Y’know: something in the 20-25 m range. Unfortunately, this beastie was mentioned to the public well before it should’ve been: the alleged remains of this creature have since proven to be non-pterosaurian and several pterosaurologists (some of whom I know quite well – but no names mentioned) retire sheepishly at its mere mention. For the less squeamish, Cameron McCormick has crafted a diagram and blog post discussing this most monstrously unreal pterosaur.

Very interesting article, i dont see how anyone could associate this critter with a lizard much less a dragon though.

Looks more like bigbird having a 'falling down' day.

post-50607-1221298809_thumb.jpg

Edited by lil gremlin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

from dc's link

Very interesting article, i dont see how anyone could associate this critter with a lizard much less a dragon though.

Looks more like bigbird having a 'falling down' day.

You miss the point entirely Grem. The point is that contrary to all of those who said in the past that is is "impossible from a 'dragon sized' reptile to fly", now we have a REAL flying reptile large enough to swallow adult human beings whole, much like many dragon legends.

Some pteroaurs looked remarkably like the popular conception of 'wyrven' type dragons, with long tails with spades on the nend, and lizard like heads full of sharp teeth. And it is intersting that ancient and medieval dragons are depicted with similar 'spade' tails centuries before anyone understead aerodynamic priciples, and that the tail would function like a 'rudder'.

And here we have an enormous flying creature that has only now been discovered, yet millions must have once lived. The ancestors of the dragons mankind reported may have likewise not been discovered yet. New species of dinosaurs are discovered every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're one to talk DC :D Atleast I actually sourced my citations, and all you really gave in a few of your other topics was a handful of wikipedia links too. Your first post, was actually one of the first times i've ever seen you source a book. :lol:

And i'm sorry if you think Wikipedia is only edited by teens and young adults with nothing better to do, but credible experts go on that site and update pages with the true facts, albeit sometimes the pages arn't up to 'truthful' standards.

How can you call them ignorant? These people make it their life to study pterosaurs, and they are making an educated guess at the weight these creatures would have to attaint to in order to fly.

If you would like, we could also call you ignorant for thinking dragons exist and that you're just trying to "save face" :huh:

Of course it is ignorant. Just try to reconstruct any bird with a 40 foot wingspan, 15 foot neck and seven foot long head (Quetzalcoatlus), and claim it would only be 250 pounds? The paleontologist who wrote the linked article agreed on this point.... it was simply ridiculous to claim they had to have such a small body. The reason the scientists 'got it wrong' is becasue the based their data on the limits of birds, and incomplete remains of the first 'giant' pterosaurs, that are now getting bigger and bigger as new discoveries are made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever taken a photo of one of these creatures? I personally doubt the existence of dragons or dragon-like creatures. But I would be willing to listen if there was evidence. ie..photos, video, etc. Any evidencs at all besides legends from hundreds and thousands of years ago?

The bulk of all "authentic" lake monster and sea serpent photos, and eyewitness accounts in general could very well be what our ancestors call dragons. Indeed, there are often dragon legends in places where lake monsters and sea serpents are reported. Some of the eyewitness accounts of so called thunderbirds, like thos from Texas, often describe something more reptilian than birdlike, with leathery instead of feathered wings..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*snip* now we have a REAL flying reptile large enough to swallow adult human beings whole, much like many dragon legends.

Some pteroaurs looked remarkably like the popular conception of 'wyrven' type dragons, with long tails with spades on the end, *snip*

1) It's large enough to swallow a man but who said it would have even tried, it probably would have eaten the giant fish around that time. Though I doubt that it would be able to fly with such a huge head and a full stomach.

2) The only pterosaurs with "long spaid-like tails" were the Ramphorhynchoids from the Triassic period, and they were tiny, you saying that, just reinforces the idea that someone found a pterosaur skeleton in a bed of sandstone and "upgraded" it to a terrifying monster.

Of course it is ignorant. Just try to reconstruct any bird with a 40 foot wingspan, 15 foot neck and seven foot long head (Quetzalcoatlus), and claim it would only be 250 pounds? The paleontologist who wrote the linked article agreed on this point.... it was simply ridiculous to claim they had to have such a small body. The reason the scientists 'got it wrong' is becasue the based their data on the limits of birds, and incomplete remains of the first 'giant' pterosaurs, that are now getting bigger and bigger as new discoveries are made.

Haha, that snippit of the website you posted that Grem just posted even said that the Quetzalcoatus skeleton was more complete than the femur and piece of skull of the Hatzegopteryx, to make a comment on Scientists making a reconstruction about the Quetzalcoatus, just makes you a hypocrite, the idea of what Hatzegopteryx's skull looked like could be completely wrong.

Besides that how can you say that you can tell how much a pterosaur weighed? Or have you seen one just like you've seen a dragon? Have you looked at some of the drawings of them? They have huge heads but their bodies are tiny, and then the majority of their size comes from hollow wing bones and thin flaps of skin, it would be ludicrous to assume they weigh more than suggested, and before you say, "well look what the one pterosaurologist write on his website". Big deal thats one scientist versus the dozens more that agree on their weight. For all you know, he could be one of the crackpot scientists that all the others laugh at, at confrences.

And their data is not really based on the limits of birds, it more based on the idea of aerodynamics, ever heard of it?

Edited by DarkSide
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) It's large enough to swallow a man but who said it would have even tried, it probably would have eaten the giant fish around that time. Though I doubt that it would be able to fly with such a huge head and a full stomach.

2) The only pterosaurs with "long spaid-like tails" were the Ramphorhynchoids from the Triassic period, and they were tiny, you saying that, just reinforces the idea that someone found a pterosaur skeleton in a bed of sandstone and "upgraded" it to a terrifying monster.

Haha, that snippit of the website you posted that Grem just posted even said that the Quetzalcoatus skeleton was more complete than the femur and piece of skull of the Hatzegopteryx, to make a comment on Scientists making a reconstruction about the Quetzalcoatus, just makes you a hypocrite, the idea of what Hatzegopteryx's skull looked like could be completely wrong.

Besides that how can you say that you can tell how much a pterosaur weighed? Or have you seen one just like you've seen a dragon? Have you looked at some of the drawings of them? They have huge heads but their bodies are tiny, and then the majority of their size comes from hollow wing bones and thin flaps of skin, it would be ludicrous to assume they weigh more than suggested, and before you say, "well look what the one pterosaurologist write on his website". Big deal thats one scientist versus the dozens more that agree on their weight. For all you know, he could be one of the crackpot scientists that all the others laugh at, at confrences.

And their data is not really based on the limits of birds, it more based on the idea of aerodynamics, ever heard of it?

The promlem is that most of the small bones of the giant pteros are not preserved, but as this scientists has stated, it is absolutely ludicrous to believe that the land vertebrate with the largest head of any in history, and with a forty foot wingspan weights as much as a human (ca. 250 lbs). And no he has also shown these creatures were probalbly not fishers but caught and swallowed young dinosaurs much like the lifestyles of storks and cranes hunting small mammals, frogs, and lizard. Base on his reconstruction, it is very probable such a creature with a konwn three foot wide beak/throat could certainly have swallowed human sized prey just as he postualates.

He has published a paper on this subject and I have seen nothing published that states he is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread just seems to be "Yes it could fly!" "No it couldn't!" "Yes it could!" "No it couldn't!" "Yes!" "no!" yes! no! yes no yes no over and over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The promlem is that most of the small bones of the giant pteros are not preserved, but as this scientists has stated, it is absolutely ludicrous to believe that the land vertebrate with the largest head of any in history, and with a forty foot wingspan weights as much as a human (ca. 250 lbs).

You're first problem is that you're comparing an animal built for living on the ground, to an animal built for the air, of course their weights arn't going to match correctly, that would be stupid.

Let's look at the Great Albatross, like I said they have an average wingspan of about 9 feet with the maximum of 11 feet. That's already longer than an average human male is at 6 feet. Now lets compare the weights, the Great Albatross is about 24 pounds, while that same human would tip that scales at around 170 pounds.

Okay now a simple calculation. Let's compare the G. Albatross' wingspan of 9 feet and times it by 4, which will make it come out a little under the same wingspan of Quetzalcoatus at 36 feet. Now let's take its weight, and also multiply that by 4 and it comes out to... DUN DUN DUN OH WOW!

A whopping total of 96 pounds!

There is some simple math for you. It has to be that way, or else it probably wouldn't be able to fly at all. Other than that, it must have been a ground dwelling animal, but then why would it have the bone structure of a flying animal.

When you get down to it all that can be said is, Dragons don't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're first problem is that you're comparing an animal built for living on the ground, to an animal built for the air, of course their weights arn't going to match correctly, that would be stupid.

Let's look at the Great Albatross, like I said they have an average wingspan of about 9 feet with the maximum of 11 feet. That's already longer than an average human male is at 6 feet. Now lets compare the weights, the Great Albatross is about 24 pounds, while that same human would tip that scales at around 170 pounds.

Okay now a simple calculation. Let's compare the G. Albatross' wingspan of 9 feet and times it by 4, which will make it come out a little under the same wingspan of Quetzalcoatus at 36 feet. Now let's take its weight, and also multiply that by 4 and it comes out to... DUN DUN DUN OH WOW!

A whopping total of 96 pounds!

There is some simple math for you. It has to be that way, or else it probably wouldn't be able to fly at all. Other than that, it must have been a ground dwelling animal, but then why would it have the bone structure of a flying animal.

When you get down to it all that can be said is, Dragons don't exist.

I believe the paleontologist whose article I linked here knows a bit more about this than you, and to my knowledge, no other scientists have disputed his papers or reconstructions/artwork.

This is 2008. The nonsense that these gigantic animals with 10 foot long skulls and 40 foot wingspans weighing only as much a a person can no longer be taken seriously, though you will still find references to this in out of date books and websites.

Quite appropriately, the scientific community has assigned the Romanian name for "dragons" to this group of gigantic flying reptiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it is ignorant. Just try to reconstruct any bird with a 40 foot wingspan, 15 foot neck and seven foot long head (Quetzalcoatlus), and claim it would only be 250 pounds? The paleontologist who wrote the linked article agreed on this point.... it was simply ridiculous to claim they had to have such a small body. The reason the scientists 'got it wrong' is becasue the based their data on the limits of birds, and incomplete remains of the first 'giant' pterosaurs, that are now getting bigger and bigger as new discoveries are made.

HAH! That's laughable.

I just did some research, trying to find any comments about him, guess what I found on his own site

24 year old PhD student trying to make his way into the murky, uncertain world of vertebrate palaeontology. Enjoys drawing pictures of long dead animals and then writing about them, although he should really be doing something more worthwhile like earning some money/doing some work/getting a life. Turns out that all three are considerably harder than advertised.

Here: http://www.flickr.com/people/markwitton/

This guy isn't even a real palieontologist, he's an artist! His word is just as credible as mine, and I gave you a damn well logical explanation for the weight.

I've also given you a counter-reaon to "scientists base their data on the limits of birds", because they use aerodynamics and muscle building techniques, and when you get down to it, what else is there to base them on?

The point is i've argued with you respectably and made several reasonable rebuttals, but as you always do you just ignore everyone else's information, and flap your gums about the same stuff over and over.

My question for you, of which you'll probably ignore is:

Where are some of the papers this supposedly "irrefutable" pterosaurologist has written? What are they called?

Or does his proffesor still have them in his desk waiting to be graded?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're first problem is that you're comparing an animal built for living on the ground, to an animal built for the air, of course their weights arn't going to match correctly, that would be stupid.

Let's look at the Great Albatross, like I said they have an average wingspan of about 9 feet with the maximum of 11 feet. That's already longer than an average human male is at 6 feet. Now lets compare the weights, the Great Albatross is about 24 pounds, while that same human would tip that scales at around 170 pounds.

Okay now a simple calculation. Let's compare the G. Albatross' wingspan of 9 feet and times it by 4, which will make it come out a little under the same wingspan of Quetzalcoatus at 36 feet. Now let's take its weight, and also multiply that by 4 and it comes out to... DUN DUN DUN OH WOW!

A whopping total of 96 pounds!

There is some simple math for you. It has to be that way, or else it probably wouldn't be able to fly at all. Other than that, it must have been a ground dwelling animal, but then why would it have the bone structure of a flying animal.

When you get down to it all that can be said is, Dragons don't exist.

I'm sorry, DarkSide, but your calculations are in error. As an object doubles in size, in each dimension, it undergoes an eightfold increase in volume, and thus mass. So taking a 9 foot, 24 pound albetross, and increasing it by as factor of four yealds a wingspan of 36 feet,

and a weight of 1536 pounds.

The very difficulty that large creatures often have comes from these basic formula. First, as size doubles, and mass increases by a factor of eight, cross-sectional area increases only by a factor of four. Thus skeletal and muscular strength, as well as wing lift-area are, proportionally decreasing with greater size.

Obviously this does not mean that larger creatures cannot exist, or even fly. But, it does mean that larger creatures will need structural accommodation for their challenges in terms of strength or lift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay we'll change my original thing up a bit, cause I am neither a mathmetician nor claim to be good at Math what so ever.

Let's say you take 4 great albatross' and tie them together, you'll get a wingspan of 36 feet and a weight of 96 pounds, given they're all the same length and same weight.

So with the there is still 154 pounds to allocate to increased size, blood volume, organ volume, and muscle mass, when compared to a large pterosaur such as Quetzalcoatus.

Fair enough?

Also thank you Archosaur for making me look bad with mathematics :lol:

Edited by DarkSide
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does everyone always assume that dragons have to be sky-scraper sized giants? Isn't it more likely that their size would have been exaggerated for effect so, in reality, they were smaller than they actually are/were? We know that pterosaurs with 40 foot wingspans can fly. Why not a dragon wtih similar dimensions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does everyone always assume that dragons have to be sky-scraper sized giants? Isn't it more likely that their size would have been exaggerated for effect so, in reality, they were smaller than they actually are/were? We know that pterosaurs with 40 foot wingspans can fly. Why not a dragon wtih similar dimensions?

Because a typical dragon doesn't have the same build as a pterosaur, a dragon doesn't look like it should be able to fly, while a pterosaur does. Dragons are just potrayed as being to muscular, and stocky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAH! That's laughable.

I just did some research, trying to find any comments about him, guess what I found on his own site

Here: http://www.flickr.com/people/markwitton/

This guy isn't even a real palieontologist, he's an artist! His word is just as credible as mine, and I gave you a damn well logical explanation for the weight.

I've also given you a counter-reaon to "scientists base their data on the limits of birds", because they use aerodynamics and muscle building techniques, and when you get down to it, what else is there to base them on?

The point is i've argued with you respectably and made several reasonable rebuttals, but as you always do you just ignore everyone else's information, and flap your gums about the same stuff over and over.

My question for you, of which you'll probably ignore is:

Where are some of the papers this supposedly "irrefutable" pterosaurologist has written? What are they called?

Or does his proffesor still have them in his desk waiting to be graded?

If you completely read the website you would have discovered that he did cowrite a scientific paper on the gigantic pterosaurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you completely read the website you would have discovered that he did cowrite a scientific paper on the gigantic pterosaurs.

Yeah well he used to be some kind of famous pterosaurologist by the way you said it, and now what is he? Some grad student! I bet you he co-wrote a paper for one of his classes, with a peer, and its sitting in some prof's desk right now.

I'd like you to source your citation by providing a quote and a link to the page and where it says that, and I'd also likeyou to find out if there is any trace of his paper on teh internet, or whether it has been published, etc, and so forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahahaha, this is prob. the funniest thread that I have been on thus far. Full of crazy stuff written by self-proclaimed amateurs and the arguing! Come on, ppl u are all getting your hackles up over a frank impossibility...lol. Wow, crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='DarkSide' date='Sep 15 2008, 10:36 AM' post='2497299'

I'd like you to source your citation by providing a quote and a link to the page and where it says that, and I'd also likeyou to find out if there is any trace of his paper on teh internet, or whether it has been published, etc, and so forth.

Good luck getting him to do that my friend, DC is notorious for the utter lack of reasonable supporting evidence for his wild claims. Looks like he's returned to his old games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahahaha, this is prob. the funniest thread that I have been on thus far. Full of crazy stuff written by self-proclaimed amateurs and the arguing! Come on, ppl u are all getting your hackles up over a frank impossibility...lol. Wow, crazy.

My friend, you have seen nothing, yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='DarkSide' date='Sep 15 2008, 10:36 AM' post='2497299'

I'd like you to source your citation by providing a quote and a link to the page and where it says that, and I'd also likeyou to find out if there is any trace of his paper on teh internet, or whether it has been published, etc, and so forth.

Good luck getting him to do that my friend, DC is notorious for the utter lack of reasonable supporting evidence for his wild claims. Looks like he's returned to his old games.

You'd think you'd get tired of putting your foot in your mouth so often.

I believe most of the adults here know I have provided sources for everything I ever said here, but not not the same sources time and time again for the benefit for every new person too lazy to read the previous posts on these subjects.

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticl...al.pone.0002271

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah well he used to be some kind of famous pterosaurologist by the way you said it, and now what is he? Some grad student! I bet you he co-wrote a paper for one of his classes, with a peer, and its sitting in some prof's desk right now.

I'd like you to source your citation by providing a quote and a link to the page and where it says that, and I'd also likeyou to find out if there is any trace of his paper on teh internet, or whether it has been published, etc, and so forth.

See the last post, and I do believe Witton has his Phd now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so this thing had a big skull.....

are you suggesting that something like that survived the KT event?

....and still exists, eluding our detection?

Edited by lil gremlin
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.