Living Dinosaur

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
What you said about the track not looking like the original thing is true, but this “track” is also fresh and not susceptible to weathering changes. For example a track before it becomes a fossil has to be covered and protected in order to become that way. If a track has been damaged at all by weathering effects then the fossil imprint is also affected. And if you look at the authentic track it has been distorted and is not a clean cut fresh track. The size is a difference but that could be explained by it being a baby. And we have to keep in mind that (if this animal does exist) that it’s been around for millions of years and is susceptible to evolution. Maybe making it smaller and changing the foot patterns. Plus why would a native go trough all the trouble of creating a false foot and walk around imprinting it in the ground. Just to point out it may look like there’s only three digits in the new image but if you look close enough right before the dirt lightings up in color there’s another digit imprint it’s hard to see unless you look close. And I’m not trying to prove this creature simply trying to find the truth.




posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
spaceman16 link is here www.cryptozoology.com... also “Flying Dinosaurs”is an interesting subject : here's a quote from cryptomundo "cryptozoologist and the journal’s editor Mark A. Hall tackles living dinosaurs, first in an article about ones that soar. The flying variety over his home continent are detailed. Also Hall writes of "other beasts resembling dinosaurs" that are reported around the globe, "including a carnosaur to rival anything in the movies." end quote

Also look up anything
by David Hatcher Childress

Pterodactyls Haunt Our Skies



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16
If a track has been damaged at all by weathering effects then the fossil imprint is also affected.

True, however, these tracks aren't damaged.

And if you look at the authentic track it has been distorted and is not a clean cut fresh track.

Why do you think its been distorted?

The size is a difference but that could be explained by it being a baby.

Definitely.

And we have to keep in mind that (if this animal does exist) that it’s been around for millions of years and is susceptible to evolution.

But then we can't really say that its a dinosaur track, because it could look like anything. Also, there is no reason to think that the track would be altered while the rest of the animal remains exactly the same. I mean, any evidence that we get, if there's something that doesn't make sense about it, we could just say that the thing has changed over time in some way that explains the problem in the 'evidence'.

Plus why would a native go trough all the trouble of creating a false foot and walk around imprinting it in the ground.

I dunno. Why does anyone do that sort of thing? We know that people sometimes do it.

Just to point out it may look like there’s only three digits in the new image but if you look close enough right before the dirt lightings up in color there’s another digit imprint it’s hard to see unless you look close.

Yeah but the problem is the entire shape of the track, its not something that would be made by a sauropod.

Also, we are just seeing a single print, and apparently there is a track of a few prints, however in sauropods there is a wide degree of differentiation between the forefoot and hindfoot. See this photo of the Glen Rose track:


The half-moon shape above the really big print is the foreprint. Its radically different.

Here is a schematic of tracks:

A is a theropod, B a sauropod, and C is an iguanodontid.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
When I say distorted, I mean that it looks like it’s been squished. Like when you step in a pile of mud and your foot slides a little, the imprint left is smeared. And in the photo you showed, the print looks a lot cleaner and “fresh”. Although it’s really old it looks like it was just made. You also said that the shape of the track is a problem. But that could also be accounted for by evolution. And just to play devil’s advocate to my self ( I know, it sounds weird) But the only problem I see with the new track the one in color, is that its extremely clean cut. Almost like the animals leg was perfectly straight (180 degrees) when I stepped down. And plus the flowers near the track aren’t disfigured in any way. You think that if a giant dinosaur just steeped within and inch or so of a flower it would be just a little disfigured. Interesting facts you posted about the strides.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I don’t know if we are allowed to use other forum sites or not, but it had some good photos. It says that the Korean site photo I obtained was really taken in Mexico so its not a picture of the animal we were discussing. How do you find out if a picture is a hoax or not? Even during searches I found that many sites defend and man sites accuse so how do I find out who’s correct?

Anyway heres the site

www.perspectives.com...



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Thanks for the link, spaceman. I haven't seen most of those images before.

Here are my impressions on all of the images in that forum:

In the Monterey Bay picture, deception through perspective is at work. Look how far back and small then men look, while the "plesiosaur" is right up to the camera. There are some 'giant squid' pictures that look like this, simply being a regular squid very close to the camera, with other things in the background.

The Situate Harbor picture, maybe a seal skeleton or something. That one is harder to say.

In my opinion, the "Japanese Fishing Boat" picture is the best "sea monster" picture I have seen.

The Ozark picture could simply be a lizard.

The rancher with the pterosaur is likely just a vulture.

"Unknown and unidentified" looks like two kids kicking a fossil. Can't really even make out the shape of it.

The Mexico picture is a photoshop

The giant oarfish picture is real.

The Coelacanth picture is a drawing, but is confirmed to exist.

The 1860 picture just looks like kids with sandcastles, to me.

Nova Scotia image is probably whale bones.

"pterosaur embryo" no idea. Looks half bat, half bird. It's probably a normal species of bird, though.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Again, this story sounds great if you live in never never land. Of course there's no physical proof! NO pictures NO video NO bones no nothing. Picture of some animal tracks though! WOW I'm convinced...Once again a good making for a movie, oh wait, it's been made already!

[edit on 14-3-2006 by where_are_american_jobs]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Great find SpaceMan


The "baby pterodactyl" is the most convincing to me, because there's a live specimen right there. I searched all over the internet though, and haven't found any furthur info on it (photoshop???). Does anybody have any more info on this pic??????




posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBlueSoldier
Great find SpaceMan


The "baby pterodactyl" is the most convincing to me, because there's a live specimen right there. I searched all over the internet though, and haven't found any furthur info on it (photoshop???). Does anybody have any more info on this pic??????


Eh, not really. Obvious photoshop. I tried searching for this pic, but nothing turned up. Would've been interesting to learn more about it.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
i found where the link came from on the baby pteradactyl

www.s8int.com...

it tells her story and about the animal

p.s. maybe you should look harder produkt

[edit on 15-3-2006 by spaceman16]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt

Originally posted by TheBlueSoldier
Great find SpaceMan


The "baby pterodactyl" is the most convincing to me, because there's a live specimen right there. I searched all over the internet though, and haven't found any furthur info on it (photoshop???). Does anybody have any more info on this pic??????


Eh, not really. Obvious photoshop. I tried searching for this pic, but nothing turned up. Would've been interesting to learn more about it.


100% photoshopped


See here: www.cryptozoology.com...



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Or rather, you shouldn't be so gullible.

Take another look. Look at the body, it's that of a bat. The head isn't the same colour. Out of focus abit compared to the rest of the body and hand of the holder. The picture on the left of the fossil was taken from a news article in nature and the two picture's combined. The article you linked to admits that they still don't know if it's real or not.



Of course, we don't know if the photo is real or fake either, though we find it diificult to believe that someone named both "Mary" and "Martha" would engage in this kind of manipulation--photo or otherwise.


The website say's it'se srouce is paranormal.com so I ran over there to look for more information. I couldn't find anything on the site, not even any mention of the article in the forum's for that month/year. I find it highly unlikely they'd keep posting's from as far back as 2001, but delete the post in regards to this article, if that's where it truely originate's from. I've found other article's, well ... same article on different site's saying the source is paranormal.com. If the original article is from that site, it's now gone and all mention of it on the forum is gone as well. Seriously guy, this is a hoax. Stop being so gullible everytime you read something onlinel.

They openly admit to not wanting to believe someone faked the picture.

[edit on 15-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Produkt

Originally posted by TheBlueSoldier
Great find SpaceMan


The "baby pterodactyl" is the most convincing to me, because there's a live specimen right there. I searched all over the internet though, and haven't found any furthur info on it (photoshop???). Does anybody have any more info on this pic??????


Eh, not really. Obvious photoshop. I tried searching for this pic, but nothing turned up. Would've been interesting to learn more about it.


100% photoshopped


See here: www.cryptozoology.com...


AHHHH! Thank you. I couldn't find anything, didn't even think to look there.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
There was a documentary on BBC last night about the Pygmies in the Congo who talk about the legend of Moleke Membe or whatever it is called. Anyway, they showed the pygmies a picture of a rhino, and they all got excited about it. Declaring that that picture was the legendary creature. They were sure. They could indentify all the animals they knew perfectly by pointing to their picture in a nature book. They pointed to the rhino and said that it was the membe creature.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but its just the story of a rhino being passed down from generation to generation. The rhino got trapped in the congo as it sprung up 2000 years ago, and then it died out. Its a rhino!



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
So why would they do the exact thing when they saw a picture of a dinosaur?



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16
So why would they do the exact thing when they saw a picture of a dinosaur?


Did you ever think that perhaps that part is a hoax? The only place's I've seen that claim are on site's like the one where you got the pterodactyl in the hand pic.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
That’s it, I give up, you all can discuss it further if you want but I give up on this post



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBlueSoldier
Great find SpaceMan


The "baby pterodactyl" is the most convincing to me, because there's a live specimen right there. I searched all over the internet though, and haven't found any furthur info on it (photoshop???).

Thats definitly not a pterosaur, its a bat with a beak extension added to it. Pterosaurs didn't have their fingers extending into the wing membrane, that thing does. Pterosaurs had an extended "pinky" that formed the wing, bats have, in effect, webs between their long fingers.


spaceman16
So why would they do the exact thing when they saw a picture of a dinosaur?

Because they call anything that is big and unusal 'mokele membe mokele membe!!'

but I give up on this post

Why? Because mokele membe might not be a living dinosaur?



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Fine then I'll admit that the little bird thing isn’t a real photo and was doctored. But it’s a different case with Mokele-Mbembe. There is a huge chance that this thing exist. Weither or not it’s an exact copy of the once living sauropod, is yet to be determined. It might be a distant relative of the sauropod that has evolved. Almost everything has evolved over time, so why not this animal. It could have evolved and became smaller, more agile, quicker, or anything. Just because there is no hard evidence doesn’t mean that it’s not real. It only lowers the belief level of people. In the text books, no hard evidence means that it doesn’t exist. And that’s how we all were raised, out of the text books, what they say is held to be the truth. So it’s understandable why many doubt its existence, and I respect everyone’s opinion, I’ll stick to my beliefs and you stick to yours. This thread (in my opinion) has reached the point of stopped forward progression and is stuck in a stalemate. So I’m just going to agree to disagree, whether or not you all want to keep the thread going is entirely up to you. That’s why I’m going to stop replying to this thread (not because I don’t believe anymore, just because we aren’t getting anywhere) If you have any question for me on this subject or this thread you can u2u me.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by spaceman16]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16
There is a huge chance that this thing exist.

But based on what? THe native 'descriptions' are usless, anything that is big and wierd is called mokele membe, the habitat is not that of a sauropod, and infact might be detrimental to sauropods.

It could have evolved and became smaller, more agile, quicker, or anything.

But there's a problem with that line of thought. Its making up excuses for why we don't have evidence for its existence, rather than comming up with a good testable idea about wether or not it exists.


Just because there is no hard evidence doesn’t mean that it’s not real.

True enough, it very well could be. But, if it was, say, captured and shown to be real, what does having 'beleived' that it was real matter? There was never any real reason for beleiving it is real, it was just an irrational beleif then that, by coincidence really, was right.

In the text books, no hard evidence means that it doesn’t exist

All that 'no hard evidence' means is that there is no hard evidence. Lack of evidence has nothing to do with showing that something doesn't exist.

I’ll stick to my beliefs and you stick to yours.

Why have beleifs in the matter? Why not look at the evidence that we do have, the sightings, the native reports, the 'foot prints', biology, paleontology, and trying to find the most reasonable explanation for it all?





top topics
 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join