romans eaten by dinosaurs

they wernt big dinos, about 8 ft tall

Originally posted by Resident Skeptik

they wernt big dinos, about 8 ft tall

Romans with weapons and armor where eaten by a 8 ft tall dino?

Maybe that's why they didn't write about it. They wanted to forget...

please read before u write, there was thought to be a group of them, not just one, and if you had a sword and shild, would you be afraid of a herd of dinos?

Originally posted by marg6043
And as for the dinosaurs news of one being found frozen and with human DNA as stated it is already probably just a creationist geared propaganda for the viewer.

You're right, Marg -- no "frozen" dinosaurs have been found. Of the few samples of tissue left (cartilage), there's actually no DNA there... only some proteins.

Someone's confusing the frozen mammoths of Siberia with dinosaurs. Mammoths aren't dinosaurs (and mammoths certainly never ate humans.)

Originally posted by Yossarian
And now we come to one of the most important pieces of Tolone’s collection. One that will receive the closest scrutiny and interrogation by experts--and for which the collector has been quite emphatic of its authenticity,- a terracotta statue of of approximately 18 cm of length representing one strange dinosaur/sauropod with plates on its back.

Certainly not a sauropod, nor any dinosaur that ever lived. It IS a representation of "dinosaurs" as we thought of them in the 1950's or so.

Stegosaurs had a double row of plates, you see. And tiny heads:
www.stegosaurus.org...

The legs are large and awkward, as of an animal of great weight, not at all like those of a lizard or of "modern" animals, such as the crested triton or other types of salamander which the sculpture has been compared to.

Actualy, the legs are impossible. All large animals are "graviportal"... they have the legs directly below the body (any other arrangement would cause the animal to collapse.)

it is possible to take up any handbook on paleontology and it becomes clear immediately that the animal represented in the sculpture belongs to a species of stegosaur,-- a species of dinosaur with plates on its back;-- that scientists assert became extinct approximately 65 million years ago...

Actually, it becomes immediately clear that it's a fake.

If the terracotta statue representing a dinosaur were a fake, it would not be at all difficult to try subjecting it to radiocarbon 14 dating, asserts Tolone, but if the scientific report shows that it is authentic and aged a few thousand years, we would be faced with one of the most incredible enigmas of world-wide archaeology.

That's some pretty wild speculation. Radiocarbon dating would not give any answer if it was created in the 1950's or so.

What would we expect if the thing were real?
* we'd have bones. Lots of bones. Relatively fresh ones. Bones don't become mineralized (turned completely to stone and buried under dozens of feet of sedimentary rock) in a few thousand years.
* they'd be confined to certain areas (all animals have specialized diets.)
* there would be leather and skin from them.
* there would be more accurate representations of them.
* the representations would be in the same area that we find stegosaur bones.

They also got the date of the stegosaurs wrong. They were abundant in the late Jurassic and found in Britain, China, and South Africa.
www4.ncsu.edu...

What it SHOULD be, if this were true, would be representations of the dinos that were in that area, including some of the theropods:
www.mummytombs.com...

Or even pleisiosaurs:
www.theallineed.com...

Instead, we're treated to a Mysterious Artifact that a lawyer "found" in that area. Nobody saw him find it, and there's no other specimens that look like it. A second "piece" of evidence is a "shard" that has a style of art not used in the ancient world (raised relief on a pot) and that appears to be stamped (they didn't stamp raised reliefs). Again it's another "gosh, I found this and it's ancient! Trust me!" discovery.

I'd have been more inclined to believe him if it was a theropod or a pleisiosaur. As it is, the evidence points to his being a liar.

[edit on 28-10-2006 by Byrd]

Originally posted by subz
This was described as a 'dinosaur-like' animal wasnt it, not a t-rex or a velociraptor? Crocodiles are still around now, why couldnt some other remnant of dinosaurs have survied as well for a time being? Why is this such a huge stretch for people to consider plausible?

We still have the descendants of dinosaurs around... they're flapping merrily through the skies. But we don't have any of the ancient dinos around.

While it's true that they didn't all keel over when the meteorite hit, they did become extinct in the period that followed it. This was a time of great changes; the most significant of which was that the plants that dinos ate mostly died off and were replaced by grass (which they couldn't eat) and other kinds of modern plants. They couldn't eat them any more than we can eat the cottonwood tree that's in my back yard.

Remember that everything has an ecological niche. Homo sapiens can only eat certain foods and live in certain areas (until they learn to make fire and build shelters and make clothes.) Horses will starve if left in the woods. Orangutangs can't live in the Pacific Northwest.

When a niche vanishes, the animal vanishes as well. Omnivores (humans, rats, pigs, etc) can survive the destruction of an ecosystem, but predators can't live when the prey is all gone and the plant-eaters can't live if their plants all die off.

Originally posted by Hellmutt
And it's a mystery how the mammoth could have been frozen as well.

Actually, it isn't.

They weren't flash-frozen. They're mummies:
www.talkorigins.org...

Originally posted by Resident Skeptik
they wernt big dinos, about 8 ft tall

The only thing close to a dinosaur that Romans had were ostriches.

They didn't even have komodo dragons (they'd have LOVED that!)

The channel you watched may be related to Pravda in some fashion... a tabloid news service that will soon start telling you that they've discovered a race of flying monkeys on the moon and that invisible poisonous skyfish are causing plagues across the globe.

"Our investigations confirmed his opinion. They proved that the animal had been preserved in the same way as Adams's mammoth, according to Toll, had been. In both cases the bodies had been enbedded in fissures of the diluvial inland ice. Then when the temperature fell the mud disappeared and the ice in which they were fast frozen had kept them, complete with their soft parts, in a state a preservation through the ages.

"Its death must have occurred very quickly after its fall, for we found half-chewed food still in its mouth, between the back teeth and on its tongue, which was in good preservation. The food consisted of leaves and grasses, some of the later carrying seeds. We could tell from these that the mammoth must have come to its miserable end in the autumn."

Cool - eat a bunch of leaves and seeding grass, fall in an ice fissure, get "fast-froze".

Happens everyday.

Neal Armstrong Admits Flying Monkeys on Moon!

Pravda, and now crap TV in Russia as well, I guess the dumbing down of Russia is proceeding at a nice quick pace.

Originally posted by Byrd
We still have the descendants of dinosaurs around... they're flapping merrily through the skies. But we don't have any of the ancient dinos around.

While it's true that they didn't all keel over when the meteorite hit, they did become extinct in the period that followed it.

My point is that we dont have evidence to dismiss this theory out of hand. Im not saying it's true, but only that it is actually possible given what we do actually know. There is a possibility of an animal resembling a dinosau - just like a crocodile does - that could of lived in remote parts of Europe for a time being. Perhaps dying off with the wooly mamoths?

To categorically claim that it's impossible isnt based in any solid evidence. How can you disprove something never existed? Try telling something like this to the scientists who found dozens of new-to-science animals in Indonesia earlier this year.

1) Close relatives to dinosaurs survived the mass extinction (crocodiles, birds)
2) Up until a couple thousand years ago, give or take, there were large enough prey roming the Russian steppes to sustain large predators
3) European and Chinese culture depicts dinosaur-like creatures, Dragons, prominently
4) Science is not as great at proving things that dont exist, as it is things that do.

Just for the record im not ascribing any weight behind this theory being true, merely stating that it is possible. Im not a Christian either so I have no vested interest in trying to tie this theory to creationism either. Infact I dont see how the two are connected. Its akin to pointing at crocodiles and saying "See the bible was right"

ive never heard of pravada, i know if there big, they prolly would just have enough to pay for an hour of local access in a small town

Pravda (Russian word for truth)? What would the Russian newspaper have to do with this?

pravda is russia's equivalent to the weekly world news or national enquirer-just a tabloid with outrageous claims.

how do you guys know about Russian Tabloids, and what would they have to do with public access in a small town in the U.S.?

[edit on 29-10-2006 by Resident Skeptik]

i remember seing this too man

antartica as in that time
was inhabited by app 6 ft raptors
the romans brought them up from the antartic
and the mediterannien by archeopterex

several hundred allosaurus existed at that time but went extinct rather quickly(these were the ones that attacked the romans)

you can see in myths bird wings resembling them (archeopterex) and of monsters resembling the raptors and such


peace love and hippiefest 2006!!

by any chance were you stoned while watching this?

Originally posted by Patrick The Religious Man
they were talking about that but as i watch the show again it said the dinosaurs must have only been around for only a short time looking for food or whatever

I notice that there is no source for this.

I think perhaps you were watching a fictional show or something.

Patrick The Religious Man
the romans recorded being attacked by a leatherskinned something

And what are they citing as their source for this claim???

btw im watching this local channel, its very low funded

Is it one of those creationist shows, trying to show that genesis is literally truth?

i would chalk this one up to something like Yeti it might exhist it might not.

You're actually having a difficult time deciding if its likely or not that dinosaurs popped out of the ground and started eating romans?

Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. They were extinct before the primitive ape-like creatures that would later lead to mankind even existed. No romans were eaten by any dinosaurs.

but was put into mythology and the remains were found some 5 years ago and did have roman armor in their stomach

There are no such remains, besides that animals don't eat armor , expect maybe cartoon monsters.

perhaps a descendant of the dinosaurs of sorts had been alive at the time but were driven to extinction

More likely, people have myths of big monstrous reptiles because.....there are big monstrous reptiles out there, pythons, crocodiles, komodos, etc.

i just saw the show, and it seemed belivable.

What was the name of the show?

they were spotted in the far west

Where in the far west?
Spain?

they did find remains with roman armor in them, whick is probably what killed them in their stomachs

Where?

not like T-Rexes or anything, more like Raptor-like things

There are no animals like that today, except ostriches. I doubt that ostriches were eating roman armies.
Also, was it soldiers or gladiator? the armor is completely different. What legion was it that was eaten? Why is there no record of a legion being eaten by strange monsters???

it is VERY farfetched, yet possible

I can't imagine what you see as being possible here. None of the elements are even remotely sensible.

There was lots of big animals there, like the wooly mammoths which just ate buttercups and stuff. I hear they were good to eat too. Big enough meal for a tyrannosaur, eh?

I can't see any of these dinosaurs being able to survive in snowbound winters in siberia and the likes. Also, none of the natives of the steps talk about animals that are actually like dinosaurs, 'dragons', sure, but dragons don't actually look like dinosaurs. Also, where are the fossils? We're talkng about 65 million years worth of habitation here, there'd have to be some fossil record over that time. We do have the mammoth remains, so why not the dinos?

Maybe the dinos liked bright and shiny objects too? Maybe that's why they prefered eating Romans, because of the shiny armor?

But what bird eats sharp scraps of metal?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was this show:
www.wkjv.com...

6:15 "Answers" with Ken Ham

Ken Ham is completely clueless, to sat the least. If he is actually lying ot people claiming that dinosuars with roman armour have been found, that only certifies it.

In fact there is a description of a dinosaur in the Old Testament!

That description doesn't especially resemble a dinosaur, its just a big animal. Also, the idea of it having a 'tail like a cedar swaying' is thought to be a mistranslation, taken with the 'his strength is within his loins' statement, its more of a reference to the animals phallus. Its probably just a overly imaginative description of a normal animal. Since dinosaurs were extinct long before the book of Job was written, its almost certainly not a decription of a dinosaur.

If crocodiles could survive the major extinction 65 million years ago why is it supposedly impossible another, much rarer, dinosaur-like creature to have survived elsewhere on Earth for a while?

Because we have a fossil record for the crocodiles, and none for any dinosaur population over 65 million years of time. Especially if they are alive during the roman era, a relatively recent era.

Did the Romans ever reach Austrailia?

No. The problem here is that there is no record ofa roman legion being destroyed by an army of reptilian monsters.

There message to me was they were under constant threat and attacks by terradactyls.

Then your lumerians are having a joke on you, there were no pterodactlys left after 65 million years ago.

Just thought I'd throw this website out and see what your ideas would be as to how these ancient cultures new what these dinosaurs looked like.

They are just bizzare animals. I don't see why a person could't look at a lizard, and then imagine a distorted and monstrous one and come up with that.
Also, lets remember, fossils have been eroding out the the ground as long as humans have been around. Its possible that they found fossils, and tried to imagine what the animals that left them looked like.

Also, and I'm not sure of this, wasn't the first depictions and stories of "dragons" long after the time of the Romans?

Myths about dragons existed long before the romans were around.

Here's another....

This really just looks like a lizard. Lizards have projections comming out of their back.

most of their guts rotted, leaving the metal behind

You're really going to need a citation for the actual discovery. Otherwise, its just what someone on some tv show claimed.

HECK, there isnt really anything about creationism

The claims are the type that we sometimes see comming out of the creationist camp.

Who was the host of the show, whats the name of the show? If its not WKJV, as linked above as a radio show at least, then what is it?

just what exactly is the crerationism things you guys are talking about exactly, i dont really understall 100% of it

Lets just stick to the topic of this show. There is a seperate creationism forum on this site.

its a "real" finding it was on conspiracy hour on this local access channel man

That hardly means its real. I wouldn't beleive everything that I hear on tv if I were you. Most of it is lies.

Why is this such a huge stretch for people to consider plausible?

Because there is nothing plausible about it. What roman legion was destroyed by 'dinosaur like monsters'? What 'dinosaur like monsters' are even out there? Why wouldn't the romans know the difference between a crocodile and some bizzare monster? Why wouldn't the people that made the show know the difference between a crocodile and a dinosaur?

They didn't even have komodo dragons

They did have monitor lizards though, the non-komodo monitors can still grow pretty big. I recall that augustus or tiberius had one as a 'pet'.

My point is that we dont have evidence to dismiss this theory out of hand.

We have evidence about when dinosaurs existed, when they died, where the lived, and we have records and evidence of what happened during roman times, what legions were stationed where, what battles they particpiated in etc.
We don't need to reject it out of hand, the evidence that we do have leads us to utterly reject this idea. Especially since neither of the two peopel that saw the show can even telll us where these remains were found, when these remains were found, who found them, or even who on the tv was talking about it.

How can you disprove something never existed?

This is entirely different. There is no evidence for this event, and the evidence that we do have contradicts it having occured. Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, and the romans never talked about a legion being eaten by giant reptilian monsters.

how do you guys know about Russian Tabloids, and what would they have to do with public access in a small town in the U.S.?

Pravada is infamous for making wildly absurd claims, so people are suggesting that because these claims are wildly absurd, they might be from pravada.
I think that that is unlikely, there are lots of people making wild claims without evidence, they're not all pravda.

antartica as in that time
was inhabited by app 6 ft raptors
the romans brought them up from the antartic
and the mediterannien by archeopterex

several hundred allosaurus existed at that time but went extinct rather quickly(these were the ones that attacked the romans)

Not only does that not jive with what we know about the natural world, it doesn't even jive with the original story, where 8 foot tall dinomonsters ate some roman soldiers.

[edit on 30-10-2006 by Nygdan]

Nydgan you just debunked the mistery of the human eating dinasours

I thought also that it came from the same source the Radio program not tv.

I can not believe that some may feed this BS to their faithful followers.

Originally posted by marg6043
Well that sounds nice and interesting but I still will like a link to see for myself from where such theory is coming from.

All right, how about this for a source?

Dinosaurs and Ancient man

The items showing stegosaurus' are pretty interesting. How would ancient man even guess at what that creature looked like?

Thought provoking to say the least, if true.

[edit on 10/30/2006 by centurion1211]