Originally posted by jake1997
If they did not co-exist..how do you explain stuff like that?
There really isn't much to explain.
This doesn't look like anything, and certainly you wouldn't need to have seen a dinosaur in order to come up with it.
The 'reconstruction' that is associated with this is completely interpretive and looks far more like its supposed to be two bison or bulls or
elephants or whatever head to head than a T-rex and a T-rex sized elephant or whatever.
These things look like giant birds with their hooked beaks and skin projections more so than actual dinosaurs. Also, the author is claiming that they
are a Corythosaurs, what Corythosaurs have ever been found in sumatra? The arguement is that the drawings are 'accurate' enough to be the result of
eye-witness, but there are no corthyosaur fossils on sumatra. Also when was this particular item made?
This is a big fish. The author suggests it 'appears to be a mososaur'. It does not.
This is clearly a crocodile, looks similar to a gavial.
The page also cites the Ica stones and other admited frauds in their 'evidences'. The other "evidences" are really nothing more than fantastical
looking creatures and monsters, some of which resemble dinosaurs.
The most surprising one is this one, imo
Adrien Mayor, in her book the First Fossil Hunters, cites this item, and indeed its the cover of the hardcover edition. its supposed to show a hero
attacking a monster that is emerging out of a rock, associated with a myth of the same theme.
In color, which the authors have for some reason chose not to use, the thing is clearly a white skull, and it even hase black holes in it that are
somewhat analagous to the holes and openings that are normally in skulls. What Mayor hypothesises is that ancient man, on occasion, came across
fossils that were weathering out of the rocks. And that these fossils inspired many of the mythical creatures that inhabit legends and tales from
those times. They'd find the gigantic and very human like shoulder blade and thigh bones of mega-elephants, and think that they were from the Titans
that used to inhabit the earth. Indeed, locations that are now known to be highly fossiliferous are strongly associated with being the actual earthly
localities of these gods, monsters, etc.
This sort of thing might actually be an explanation of the biblical nephilim and the idea that 'there were giants in those days".
The legend of the griffin, as a four-pawed animals with wings and a beak that inhabits the ground and protects gold and diamonds, appears to have
first come out of what's now the asian steppes and deserts, which, indeed, are the localities in which one finds the 'fresh' looking (but rock hard
fossils) of ceratopsids, with their egg clutches, four paws, sharp curved beaks, and large crested projections. The formations that have the fossils
are also associated with washed out gold deposits.
So there's really no reason to assume that, because it looks like a 'dinosaur' (where are the raptors? the dino-birds, the ankylosaurs, etc etc?)
that that means that the people that made it ever saw dinosaurs (excluding of course the ones that are admited frauds which did see dinosaurs, in
musuems and artbooks) anymore than it means that there were flying fire-breathing dragons, unicorns, griffins, or the greek gods or anything.