Stegosaurus image found on Cambodian temple

since elephants aren't native of the area no they wouldn't have. Even where they do exist elephants are usually only killed for their tusks and the bodies left to rot. The Greek then would have had no need to butcher one ............... they raised sheep , goats , chickens.. Today they are killed for their ivory. Then if you brought one down you would eat it as well as use the tusk's. The Greeks may or may not have come into contact with elephants. But what about the wholly mammoth. which lived in asia and europe. Surely their ancesters did come into contact with them and they were eaten by ma... [More]

any more news on this yet? official news, that is...usually such things just get forgotten after a while as a hoax and very few people ever bother to find out the truth.

except that we have found that there were a variety of stegs in Asia. Yes, but the thrust of his argument is how it looks like a rhino, not how it doesn't look like a stego.

Yes, but the thrust of his argument is how it looks like a rhino, not how it doesn't look like a stego. But, part of this argument is that there were no stegos in cambodia at all. Which we now know is not true. If part of your argument falls other parts may also fall. For instance we do not really know how big a stegos head really was or the size of it's ears.

But, part of this argument is that there were no stegos in cambodia at all. Which we now know is not true. If part of your argument falls other parts may also fall. Only if they rely on the first premise being true. If the two premises are independant (i.e. "It does not look like a stego", and "It does look like a rhino"), then the failure of the first premise is of no consequence to the second premise. Irregardless, the first premise doesn't fail because, regardless of whether stegos exist in Asia or not, the comparison was made on the stegos that we know of, and is therefore valid. For insta... [More]

Only if they rely on the first premise being true. If the two premises are independant (i.e. "It does not look like a stego", and "It does look like a rhino"), then the failure of the first premise is of no consequence to the second premise. Irregardless, the first premise doesn't fail because, regardless of whether stegos exist in Asia or not, the comparison was made on the stegos that we know of, and is therefore valid. Are you under the impression that no stego skulls have been discovered? No but since ears are not bone nor is skin or muscle. We assume we know what they look like because of... [More]

But, part of this argument is that there were no stegos in cambodia at all. Which we now know is not true. If part of your argument falls other parts may also fall. For instance we do not really know how big a stegos head really was or the size of it's ears. Why is it not true that there were no stegosaurs in Cambodia? They were only found in different parts of China, all of the sites quite a distance from Cambodia. This is like saying that there are grizzly bears in Guatemala because they are in the USA. Stegosaurs, as modern science goes had no visible pinnae (the visible, outer part of the ... [More]

This guy here makes a pretty convincing argument that it's a rhino. Cambodian Stegasaurus How on earth did this Image credit: Tiere der Urwelt come from this ??

How on earth did this Image credit: Tiere der Urwelt come from this ?? I still say it looks more like a pig with "ornamentation" than a steg. *Except for the tail.

Another point is that if the "plates" on the back were indeed dino plates, then it would make this one carving unique among the thousands of carvings on the temple in that it would be the only one without a background of flora.