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 -

Living pterosaurs


AnnaNova

Recommended Posts

Hi. It seems like none of my critics understand the way medieval artists drew animals. If you took a look at how they depicted living animals such as elephants, rhinos, or giraffes you'd see they are comical, or weird and don't resemble the animal, because in the main they drew them from written descriptions, or word of mouth. I believe they depicted pterosaurs that people could have reported as being flying creatures with hands that stand on two legs, with bat wings, and either a leathery or shaggy body with a long neck and long tail. So I think the one painted in the image I showed would be a good example of the weird thing they'd read/heard about. Otherwise what other animal could have inspired this creature that is unlike any bird, or bat? If you dismiss it as imagination, then why paint something so realistically (in medieval terms) when they could have drawn something totally bizarre  with rainbow colours?

When it comes to those who say pterosaurs nested like birds and wouldn't be found in caves. There is no evidence for the behaviour of any prehistoric animal, except a scant amount for some of them; it is all conjecture. No-one can say that small pterosaurs did not roost in underground caves like bats, or that they never developed this behaviour due to environmental changes. I also add that many large animals we never knew existed were discovered in the 1900s and we never knew the coelacanth had survived until fishermen caught one. There is no evidence for living pterosaurs in the hundreds of unexplored cave systems in the USA and other places where they seem to be seen, because no-one has ever funded an expedition to go looking for them. You can never find anything until you go looking for it unless you get lucky. I suggest the reason why some may still be here is because they've found a safe niche for themselves away from man's interference.

It's remarkable how much people miss unless they're out living in the wilds constantly observing; especially at night. Just because a few visitors to a remote place don't see anything within a few hours, or days, it means nothing. :st :su :st

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, AnnaNova said:

Hi. It seems like none of my critics understand the way medieval artists drew animals. If you took a look at how they depicted living animals such as elephants, rhinos, or giraffes you'd see they are comical, or weird and don't resemble the animal, because in the main they drew them from written descriptions, or word of mouth. I believe they depicted pterosaurs that people could have reported as being flying creatures with hands that stand on two legs, with bat wings, and either a leathery or shaggy body with a long neck and long tail. So I think the one painted in the image I showed would be a good example of the weird thing they'd read/heard about. Otherwise what other animal could have inspired this creature that is unlike any bird, or bat? If you dismiss it as imagination, then why paint something so realistically (in medieval terms) when they could have drawn something totally bizarre  with rainbow colours?

When it comes to those who say pterosaurs nested like birds and wouldn't be found in caves. There is no evidence for the behaviour of any prehistoric animal, except a scant amount for some of them; it is all conjecture. No-one can say that small pterosaurs did not roost in underground caves like bats, or that they never developed this behaviour due to environmental changes. I also add that many large animals we never knew existed were discovered in the 1900s and we never knew the coelacanth had survived until fishermen caught one. There is no evidence for living pterosaurs in the hundreds of unexplored cave systems in the USA and other places where they seem to be seen, because no-one has ever funded an expedition to go looking for them. You can never find anything until you go looking for it unless you get lucky. I suggest the reason why some may still be here is because they've found a safe niche for themselves away from man's interference.

It's remarkable how much people miss unless they're out living in the wilds constantly observing; especially at night. Just because a few visitors to a remote place don't see anything within a few hours, or days, it means nothing. :st :su :st

Dramatic artistic talents does equal a jump to anything.

Dragons were not a crappy artists concept of living pterosaurs

You arent the first and wont be the last to want to desire that dragons were living creatures, but there is zero evidence to support it.

 

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AnnaNova said:

Hi. It seems like none of my critics understand the way medieval artists drew animals. If you took a look at how they depicted living animals such as elephants, rhinos, or giraffes you'd see they are comical, or weird and don't resemble the animal, because in the main they drew them from written descriptions, or word of mouth. I believe they depicted pterosaurs that people could have reported as being flying creatures with hands that stand on two legs, with bat wings, and either a leathery or shaggy body with a long neck and long tail. So I think the one painted in the image I showed would be a good example of the weird thing they'd read/heard about. Otherwise what other animal could have inspired this creature that is unlike any bird, or bat? If you dismiss it as imagination, then why paint something so realistically (in medieval terms) when they could have drawn something totally bizarre with rainbow colours?

Medieval artists portrayed plenty of mythical creatures in a semi-realistic fashion. Do you also think the bonnacon (left) and the unicorn (right) were real animals?

Bonnacon.jpg.a0b769f10b036e4df8a7964a83674f66.jpg800px-The_Unicorn_in_Captivity_-_Google_Art_Project.thumb.jpg.99c0748d09f57e2ec4ef2f7c02ae5028.jpg

Why would someone who saw a living pterosaur depict it with bat-like wing fingers, ear pinnae, and a scrotum? These are mammalian characteristics that no reptile has. Even following your "logic" that it is a real animal, why couldn't it be an unknown species of flying mammal? That's certainly no more ridiculous an assumption than a living pterosaur.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AnnaNova said:

When it comes to those who say pterosaurs nested like birds and wouldn't be found in caves. There is no evidence for the behaviour of any prehistoric animal, except a scant amount for some of them; it is all conjecture. No-one can say that small pterosaurs did not roost in underground caves like bats, or that they never developed this behaviour due to environmental changes. I also add that many large animals we never knew existed were discovered in the 1900s and we never knew the coelacanth had survived until fishermen caught one. There is no evidence for living pterosaurs in the hundreds of unexplored cave systems in the USA and other places where they seem to be seen, because no-one has ever funded an expedition to go looking for them. You can never find anything until you go looking for it unless you get lucky. I suggest the reason why some may still be here is because they've found a safe niche for themselves away from man's interference.

No, there is actually direct evidence for behavior in the fossil record. We have large accumulations of pterosaur eggs and bones that prove they nested in colonies on open ground. I already linked the papers about this in a previous post. There is no evidence that pterosaurs inhabited caves or that any environmental factors encouraged them to do so.

The coelacanth analogy is woefully tired at this point and doesn't even apply in this case. Coelacanths live in underwater caves in the Indian Ocean, they aren't flying over heavily-populated areas of the United States.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont want to get in trouble here but growing up this was my favorite dino,

Archaeopteryx

There was some furor that the fossils were frauds, not sure why but i always liked this guy.

OIP.sBKUEDJUBgu2iwsK6y94pQHaGI?w=193&h=1

My dad a very talented taxidermist had plans to make one using bird and reptile parts but never got around to it.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, AnnaNova said:

Hi. It seems like none of my critics understand the way medieval artists drew animals. If you took a look at how they depicted living animals such as elephants, rhinos, or giraffes you'd see they are comical, or weird and don't resemble the animal, because in the main they drew them from written descriptions, or word of mouth. I believe they depicted pterosaurs that people could have reported as being flying creatures with hands that stand on two legs, with bat wings, and either a leathery or shaggy body with a long neck and long tail. So I think the one painted in the image I showed would be a good example of the weird thing they'd read/heard about. Otherwise what other animal could have inspired this creature that is unlike any bird, or bat? If you dismiss it as imagination, then why paint something so realistically (in medieval terms) when they could have drawn something totally bizarre  with rainbow colours?

When it comes to those who say pterosaurs nested like birds and wouldn't be found in caves. There is no evidence for the behaviour of any prehistoric animal, except a scant amount for some of them; it is all conjecture. No-one can say that small pterosaurs did not roost in underground caves like bats, or that they never developed this behaviour due to environmental changes. I also add that many large animals we never knew existed were discovered in the 1900s and we never knew the coelacanth had survived until fishermen caught one. There is no evidence for living pterosaurs in the hundreds of unexplored cave systems in the USA and other places where they seem to be seen, because no-one has ever funded an expedition to go looking for them. You can never find anything until you go looking for it unless you get lucky. I suggest the reason why some may still be here is because they've found a safe niche for themselves away from man's interference.

It's remarkable how much people miss unless they're out living in the wilds constantly observing; especially at night. Just because a few visitors to a remote place don't see anything within a few hours, or days, it means nothing. :st :su :st

Hi Anna

Interesting concept, not sure I can see a bat sized pterosaur overly intimidating enough to infer it's a dragon of lore if I can kill it with my shoe instead of my trusty steed and blade.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Anna

Interesting concept, not sure I can see a bat sized pterosaur overly intimidating enough to infer it's a dragon of lore if I can kill it with my shoe instead of my trusty steed and blade.

If they find any i want one, it would make a great pet.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2022 at 9:24 PM, AnnaNova said:

 Otherwise what other animal could have inspired this creature that is unlike any bird, or bat?

Mothman? :whistle:

3d Illustration Av Mothman-foton och fler bilder på Djur - iStock

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
46 minutes ago, SALLY ANN said:

Can anyone explain this picture.

Pterodactyl.JPG

Yes, it is an image-manipulation software hoax.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2022 at 7:22 PM, the13bats said:

I dont want to get in trouble here but growing up this was my favorite dino,

Archaeopteryx

There was some furor that the fossils were frauds, not sure why but i always liked this guy.

OIP.sBKUEDJUBgu2iwsK6y94pQHaGI?w=193&h=1

My dad a very talented taxidermist had plans to make one using bird and reptile parts but never got around to it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45967655

Yep some people said it was fraud.. but got debunked ?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Resume said:

Is there a question?

I have one.

Why can't individuals take 30 seconds of their own time to investigate these kinds of pictures?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2022 at 3:48 PM, SALLY ANN said:

Can anyone explain this picture.

Pterodactyl.JPG

 

1 hour ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

I have one.

Why can't individuals take 30 seconds of their own time to investigate these kinds of pictures?

 

On 3/7/2022 at 3:54 PM, onlookerofmayhem said:

 

I guess i go at things differently than some folks, i am lazy more so when i dont feel well but when i first saw and researched the freakylinks pix i found all the info in about 10 minutes,

The other better one in my opinion the "Chris Smith" thunderbird, why would any rational person see it as anything other than the work of a talented artist?

I admit i would like details like did smith use a real antique photo or was it staged with actors like the freakylinks pix, and like with the FL pix did smith use a prop or is it all 'shop? My one critique of smiths work, wheres the kill shot? Look at the perfect wing skin, no holes, this thing looks far too good to have been shot down dead.

Now before the annoyed noisy true believers even ask, why am i so quick to dismiss these pix as hoax for civil war soldiers to shoot down a pterosaur we need not one but a flock a breeding population and if we had that a lot would have been seen and shot down, those soldiers would have had souvenirs passed down to their kin a museum would have jumped on the remains if PT Barnum didnt buy it for more, in fact if the pix were real we wouldnt be talking about it as it would be well known mainstream that pterosaurs live to this day.

Research is wonderful but common sense should prevail.

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2022 at 9:57 AM, Resume said:

I love to watch them soar on the thermals.

I wrote an emu story here once. Was in reference to that. Keep up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nobu said:

I wrote an emu story here once. Was in reference to that. Keep up

It was a joke, lighten up.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I suspect that they do exist.  I might have seen one.  Dark and we couldn't be sure of what we saw, but the wing shape was unlike that of any bird I've seen in person or on film, and not like a bat, either.  Creepy, whatever it was, and very threatening to two people who weren't threatened by much.  I didn't think of that as a possibility at the time, but looking back, that fits better than anything else. 

  • Thanks 1
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.