It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dinosaur engraved in an artifact

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Heres a flute that has sauropods engraved in
an artifact. It was found in a cathedrail on the UK. It was said be from the 15th century. Maybe people back the had seen dinosaurs.
here is the site. I think that dinosaurs are still around. www.cryptozoology.com...

[edit on 23-5-2005 by gothica91]




posted on May, 23 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Wow, good find. It sure does look like them!



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Holy crap that's wierd!

But then again, if you look at the hind legs, they don't really match the presumed (modern) shape.
But its extremely interesting.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
thats interesting. but how did they know about dinosuars back then?



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Nice find. That is pretty wierd. Perhaps they had their own lochness monsters then



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Geographically, these animals were widespread, with remains, in the form of bones or footprints, having been found on all of the continents except Antarctica. In addition to their wide geographic distribution, sauropods are one of the most long-lived groups of dinosaurs, spanning some 100 or so million years, from the Lower Jurassic to the Upper Cretaceous. The end of the Jurassic represents, in terms of abundance, the zenith in sauropod history.
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

With all the bones left behind by these beasts, I don't find it hard to believe that someone in the 1400's had found a fossil and extrapolated what the animal looked like.

Native Americans living in Alberta, Canada called them the grandfather of the buffalo.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Native Americans living in Alberta, Canada called them the grandfather of the buffalo.


I'm not Native American, but I am Albertan, and yeah, we have tons of dinosaur bones here. If some guy found a complete or mostly complete fossilized skeleton, making a picture of the dinosaur fleshed out shouldn't be too hard. I don't think this flute means sauropods were wandering around 500 years ago, but it is an interesting find nonetheless.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   
If they had been around, the bones we found wouldn't be fossilized. It takes tens of thousands of years to change bone into stone.

Art of that time had a tradition of doing "fantastical animals." They show up in a lot of illustrations and are simply imagination and not reality. Given the lack of evidence of recently living sauropods (in paintings, in writing, in other evidence) I think it's just art and not reality.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Ya...listen to BYRD...she knows all about this kinda thing......



Good call Byrd.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
If they had been around, the bones we found wouldn't be fossilized. It takes tens of thousands of years to change bone into stone.


and how have we realy proven that "fact"? have we burried bones for 0,000 years to prove it? i somehow don't think so. so how do we KNOW that that is the time it takes? what we realy have is strong therories about it. NOT PROOF. also mabe some dinasaurs did live into that time period. that WOULD ACCOUNT for the legend of DRAGONS. something that is an oddity that we realy don't know about. also if it dose take anywhere neer that long to form a fossil we wouldn't have any fosilized proof about them at that time would we?

personaly i have always wondered if dinasours were hunted into extintion as we have so many animals. especialy animals that humans have been frightened of. the closest thing in size that we do have are eliphants, and they are hunted currantly sometimes guns are not used. therefore it is entirely possible to have had happen.


Art of that time had a tradition of doing "fantastical animals." They show up in a lot of illustrations and are simply imagination and not reality. Given the lack of evidence of recently living sauropods (in paintings, in writing, in other evidence) I think it's just art and not reality.


or it could be based on actual critters that no longer existed or where a rarety. and also remember that most "history" was passed down by mouth, so many embelishements can be made throughout time giveing them powers that they may not have had. point is it is etreemly narrow minded to dismiss something out of hand just because it does not suit what we WANT to believe about things.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by drogo

Originally posted by Byrd
If they had been around, the bones we found wouldn't be fossilized. It takes tens of thousands of years to change bone into stone.


and how have we realy proven that "fact"? have we burried bones for 0,000 years to prove it?

Well, yes. Remember all the mummies we have lying around and graveyards from ancient civilizations? We have dates and king lists and a fairly good record that goes back to at least 6,000 BC. And we can say with confidence that in all that time we don't get fossils.

We do get very old bones.

There are ways to date things back farther (tree ring chronology for one area, among MANY techniques.) So I'm very certain that we might get some partly mineralized bones at 20,000 years but that we don't see full fossils until much longer time has passed.

Remember, a fossil isn't "something found in stone" or "something covered in stone." You have to replace everything in the bone with stone (yeah, I know I'm glossing over a lot of things. I just don't want to unload a lot of data about soil types and leeching rates and chemical stuff.)


what we realy have is strong therories about it. NOT PROOF.

You've just run into one of the things that most folks find hard to grasp: there's a difference beween what ordinary people call a theory and what scientists call a theory.

"Theory" is "scientific-speak" for "it fits all the data and no we haven't actually examined every single speck but we're confident." The Pythagorean theorem (A-squared + B-squared=C-squared for all right triangles) is a theory ... still... because we haven't examined every single possible right triangle (no matter how large or small.)

An "educated guess" is a hypothesis.



also mabe some dinasaurs did live into that time period.

And your PROOF of this is...?


that WOULD ACCOUNT for the legend of DRAGONS.

So would accounts of crocodiles or Komodo dragons or any number of large lizards. And it's more likely that they're the source, given where the oldest legends of dragons come from. Ditto, given the changes they made between the Greek concepts and the European concepts (and all the weird changes made to the concept when the alchemists got ahold of the notion.)


something that is an oddity that we realy don't know about. also if it dose take anywhere neer that long to form a fossil we wouldn't have any fosilized proof about them at that time would we?

You're talking about 1400-1500 AD. We have TONS (quite literally) of proof that things from that time don't form fossils... graveyards full of proof, in fact, along with trash heaps (animal bones) and antiques and so on and so forth.





Art of that time had a tradition of doing "fantastical animals." They show up in a lot of illustrations and are simply imagination and not reality. Given the lack of evidence of recently living sauropods (in paintings, in writing, in other evidence) I think it's just art and not reality.


or it could be based on actual critters that no longer existed or where a rarety. and also remember that most "history" was passed down by mouth,

By the time of dragons, human civilization had been writing for thousands of years. The first real depictions and mention of dragons were in Babylon/Sumeria -- Tiamat is often described as a "dragon" though this is simply a convenient translation of a Sumerian word that we really don't know the meaning of. There are also "dragons" in a number of Sumerian items (including the splendid "dragon gate") -- BUT THE SUMERIANS DIDN'T CALL THEM "DRAGONS." Or think of them as dragons.

It was the antiquaries (people who lived in the 1700's and collected artifacts) that called them dragons.

By the way, the original term in Greek (the language where the word comes from) also referred to a sea monster. www.etymonline.com...


so many embelishements can be made throughout time giveing them powers that they may not have had. point is it is etreemly narrow minded to dismiss something out of hand just because it does not suit what we WANT to believe about things.

Don't assume I dismissed it lightly.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Just a little food for thought about fossilization.



www.abovetopsecret.com...
SCI/TECH: Scientists Recover Soft Tissue from T. rex

Scientists have recovered soft tissue from a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex thighbone. The 70-million-year-old bone was broken when it was removed from a sandstone formation in Montana. Scientists removed the minerals from the fossil, leaving behind tissues that were soft and transparent and could be manipulated with instruments. The lead researcher likened the process to placing a chicken bone in vinegar. The minerals will dissolve, leaving the soft tissues behind.
There appears to be individual cells as well as long structures like blood vessels.
The vessels and contents are similar in all respects to blood vessels recovered from ostrich bone. Because evidence has accumulated in recent years that modern birds descended from dinosaurs, scientists chose to compare the dinosaur remains with those of an ostrich, the largest bird available. Scientists also proclaim that this is also a huge opportunity to learn more about how fossils are made, a process that is not fully understood.




Originally posted by gothica91
40 Million year old Cowboy boot found!
Everyone has heard the story. "We know absolutely for certain, it takes millions and millions of years for fossils to petrify." Oh yeah? How old do you think this boot could be? Millions and millions of years old? I suppose it could be made from T. Rex skin. Do you really think so? The rubber-soled boot with petrified cowboy leg, bones and all was found in a dry creek bed near the West Texas town of Iraan, about 1980 by Mr. Jerry Stone, an employee of Corvette oil company. The boot was hand made by the M. L. Leddy boot company of San Angelo, Texas which began manufacturing boots in 1936. Gayland Leddy, nephew of the founder, grew up in the boot business and now manages Boot Town in Garland, Texas. He recognized the "number 10 stitch pattern" used by his uncle?s company and concluded that the boot was made in the early 1950's. Only the contents of the boot are fossilized, not the boot itself, demonstrating that some materials fossilize more readily than others. The bones of the partial leg and foot within the boot were revealed by an elaborate set of C.T. Scans performed at Harris Methodist Hospital in Bedford, Texas on July 24, 1997. The Radiologic Technician was Evelyn Americus, AART. A complete set of these scans remains with the boot at the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas. The fact that some materials can fossilize rapidly under certain circumstances is well known by experts in the field and is not really a scientific issue. However, the general public has been misled in order to facilitate the impression of great ages. The dramatic example of the "Limestone Cowboy" immediately communicates the truth of the matter. Fossilization proves nothing about long periods of time.
Here is the sight informationcentre.tripod.com...

[edit on 24-4-2005 by gothica91]



Originally posted by Byrd
By the time of dragons, human civilization had been writing for thousands of years. The first real depictions and mention of dragons were in Babylon/Sumeria -- Tiamat is often described as a "dragon" though this is simply a convenient translation of a Sumerian word that we really don't know the meaning of. There are also "dragons" in a number of Sumerian items (including the splendid "dragon gate") -- BUT THE SUMERIANS DIDN'T CALL THEM "DRAGONS." Or think of them as dragons.


Maybe the word was "Dagon", their reptilian / amphibian god.





DAGON, also called OANNES, painted on Etruscan Amphora. From Robert Temple's: "The Sirius Mystery", 1997, Fig. 30).

In later traditions such as the Philistines, the Fish-Tailed God was known as Dagon, which is mentioned in the Bible. This Fish tailed God was worshipped off the coast of Syria and appears in Babylonian cylinder seals, in Persian coins, in Etruscan amphoras, in Phoenician coins, on Greco-Phoenician scarabs, and in the reliefs of the Palace of Sargon.

www.water-consciousness.com...



[edit on 5/24/2005 by mythatsabigprobe]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Well dinosaurs if they still exited would look very different from like how they looked 65 million years ago. I doubt sauropods would still survive for that long.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by gothica91
40 Million year old Cowboy boot found!
Here is the sight informationcentre.tripod.com...


One of the most famous and lame hoaxes out there.

Look at the picture. Now look carefully.

Those are cow bones stuck into concrete mix poured into an old boot. Furthermore, they're not turned into stone (remember the definition -- it's not "something embedded in stone" it's "something that got regular stuff replaced by stone.")

You see, human legs have a tibia and a fibula. The tibia is a strong bone, but the fibula is about the size of a pencil.

Take a look at the hoax picture.

Them ain't human bones. You can go look at any number of pictures of skeletons and see for yourself.


Maybe the word was "Dagon", their reptilian / amphibian god.

"Dagon" and "Dragon" have different origin words. Dagon originally was a god of grain, and the root word in Ugaritic is "dgn" which comes out "Dagnu" and "Dagana"
encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com...

"Dragon" is Greek and was the name of an eel-like fish.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by gothica91
Heres a flute that has sauropods engraved in
an artifact. It was found in a cathedrail on the UK. It was said be from the 15th century.

[edit on 23-5-2005 by gothica91]


interesting find,
but, if i were going to come to some conclusions, like you have

I would want to see the whole inlay engraving around the tomb
which must be more than 16 feet of flute/banding.
that one small section might be interesting, but is 'out-of-context'

i'm reminded of 'scrimshaw' objects, pieces of whale ivory or
even baleen, which were etched by the seamen & whalers
during their downtime on long sea voyages. The sailors'
imagination and the physical size/contours of the object to
be etched were the determining factors in the end-product.
Scrimshaw pieces are known to incorporate mermaids and
sea-serpents in the graphic etchings.

i think the 'dinosaur' inlay fits into that type category/ genre
?stylized elephants? whimsical, snakes with legs?
any pictographs or symbols on this tomb/crypt had some
significance with the interred individuals' life story...

????????????



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Creative scribes and storytellers in the Middle Ages indeed invented wonderous creatures, as creative scribes and storytellers do today.

My concern isn't that this dinosaur-looking animal's image was extrapolated from fossils, but, due to the accuracy in its depiction, rather that the artist had seen older art with similar such representations.

100 million years is quite a stretch, and it is not out of the question that some critters were able to survive unseen through ancient times. The reason that this type of thing is "almost out of the question" is because there is no direct evidence of it. From time to time, art like this appears, and the simplest explanation for these types of things is NOT that dinosaurs existed 0-3000 years ago.

Zip



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   

To me, though, it suggests that some people in the 1400s may have been actual eye-witnesses of these amazing creatures.

Preposterous. Herds of sauropods stomping around bonnie old england??






These designs are on the edge of this

Hardly seems any reason to think that they are even from the time that the tomb was made.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Very interesting find, but as we know for a fact that ancient people had ancients accounts of incredible stories that has been passed from Generation to Generations.

You don't have to be a modern man in ancient time to figure that if you find bones bigger than the ones from your regular food chain is because big animals were around.

You don't have to be an artist of modern time to paint or carve the way you think they used to look like.

In our modern days we still rely on the words of ancient tests to imagine how ancient times used to be.

But we can paint a picture of it . . . right?

After all most people worship what they have never seen.......as being real.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Hmm, those pictures that Nygdan brought forth make it appear like a damn rat. Heh.

*Shuts the case.*

Zip



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
about the fossils. never heard of the cowboy boot thing, but i remembered a similar one i had heard about and looked up.

www.answersingenesis.org...

its about half way down the page. a hat found in a village, as well as a roll of wire.

btw, i know the sites christian, not trying to push that, im just pointing out the section about the fossils.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join