Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Monster of Troy and implications on Dinosaurs.

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Everyone here has been taught there entire life that dinosaurs were all killed 65 million years ago right? Well there is a small vase that makes its home in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts that depicts the Monster of Troy. The amazing part is that the picture of the Monster is that of a dinosaur.

The tale of the Monster of Troy was first told by Homer in the eighth century B.C. In this legend, a terrifying monster suddenly appeared on the Trojan coast after a flood, and began preying on the farmers in the neighborhood of Sigeum. The king's daughter, Hesione, was sent as a sacrifice to the monster, but according to the legend, Heracles arrives in time to kill it.

The Vase has confused archaeologists for centuries and still does today. The main reason is the departure from conventional Greek monster design to the new design the monster simply does not fit in with other monster designs of the greeks. So did someone actually see a dinosaur? No! Can't Be! they were dead long before mankind there is no way someone could have seen a dinosaur. Well that may be the case if you refuse to think for yourself.


The painter of this vase lived in Corinth, a Greek trade hub, and painted the picture of the Monster sometime near 550 B.C.








posted on May, 18 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   
It's object nr. 259823 of the MFA catalogue: source.

The MFA catalogue says only this about the monster depicted:

A. Mayor has recently interpreted the head of the "dragon" as an image inspired by the sight of a fossil skull emerging from a cliff (see The First Fossil Hunters, Princeton, 2000, pages 157-165).


This article says:

Art scholars have generally interpreted the monster (yellow face at right) as a sea serpent emerging from a black cave, but Mayor and a group of paleontologists think the creature might actually be the fossil skull of an extinct giraffe eroding out of a hillside. Mayor's analysis of the vase painting appears in the February OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY.


The monster does look more like a skull than a real dinosaur head to me. We would expect to find a lot of dinosaur remains if they lived as recently as 2500 years ago. If dinosaurs existed then, wouldn't there be a lot more depictions?



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Ok so the monster of Troy was a dead Giraffe?? Why would hercules need to kill a dead Giraffee? I don't think I need to comment on that.

Have we forgot about the ICA Stones

paranormal.about.com...


Known collectively as the Ica Stones (they are found in Ica, Peru), these rocks, varying in size from that of a baseball to twice that of a basketball, are hand-etched with pictures of primitive fish, dinosaurs and Indians using what appear to be tools of advanced technology.


Also take a look here

www.answersingenesis.org...



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Ok so the monster of Troy was a dead Giraffe?? Why would hercules need to kill a dead Giraffee? I don't think I need to comment on that.


From the article:

The skull of one of the prehistoric mammals may have been the model for the vase painting and the legend that it illustrates.


I thought Byrd debunked those stones some time ago. The depictions essentialy changed with time to fit with the idea people had of dinosaurs at the time they were found.



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Just a guess by archeologist Mayor that cannot be proven. And could you provide a link to the proof against the ICA stones.

Thank You



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Just a guess by archeologist Mayor that cannot be proven. And could you provide a link to the proof against the ICA stones.


Against a guess by a forum poster that cannot be proven? It's interesting that it's a non-standard Archaic Greek monster depiction, but it proves nothing. I'm convinced by Mayor's thesis either. The standard art historians opinion that it is a depiction of a monster similar to Δρακονες, dragons, or Κητεα, seamonsters emerging from a cave. The head shape is similar.


Δρακον (source)


Κητος (source)

More Greek monsters here.

On the Ica stones I quote Byrd (source):

Actually, if you take a long look at these things, you'll start to recognize them as frauds.

You see, the first ones depicted dinosaurs as we thought they looked in the 1920's. There's no sophisitcated treatments and corrected stances there, and the details of the dinos are quite wrong.

Later on, you'll see that they suddenly start taking on a more modern appearance and the more recent ones to turn up look (gee whiz) a lot like the ones on the Discovery Channel and in museums.

This is a hallmark of a fraud.

If they were for real, the stones would have given us information that we didn't know (correct proportions of dinos, correct stances) and which we would have only later found to be correct.


BTW, BlackJackal, do you remember to send me the corrections/additions? I really want them
.

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by amantine]



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Ok so the monster of Troy was a dead Giraffe?? Why would hercules need to kill a dead Giraffee? I don't think I need to comment on that.


Hercules wouldn't need to kill a dead Giraffe. If someone from Homer's time saw a fossil skull in a cliff, they wouldn't know it was a giraffe. So they would be free to imagine any sort of creature they wanted.

In any case, Homer's work is not history in any modern sense of the word. While a good case can be made for the actual occurance of the Trojan war, his details are made up from myth and legend and imagination. Homer describes the Greek Gods in wonderful detail. Does that make them real?



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by glee
Hercules wouldn't need to kill a dead Giraffe. If someone from Homer's time saw a fossil skull in a cliff, they wouldn't know it was a giraffe. So they would be free to imagine any sort of creature they wanted.


Wait a minute....so are we all argeeing Hercules was a real person now?...Cause we are argueing if he killing something...but if he didnt exist...none of it probably did...

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
(source):

Actually, if you take a long look at these things, you'll start to recognize them as frauds.

You see, the first ones depicted dinosaurs as we thought they looked in the 1920's. There's no sophisitcated treatments and corrected stances there, and the details of the dinos are quite wrong.

Later on, you'll see that they suddenly start taking on a more modern appearance and the more recent ones to turn up look (gee whiz) a lot like the ones on the Discovery Channel and in museums.

This is a hallmark of a fraud.

If they were for real, the stones would have given us information that we didn't know (correct proportions of dinos, correct stances) and which we would have only later found to be correct.




Alright according to the logic that Byrd used the above image of a horse should be a fraud because it does not represent how a real horse looks or stands. Yet it is a real artifact made by the Han Dynasty.

www.svam.org...

As for them changing overtime Byrd is the only one I have ever heard say that.

BTW as for the additions I should be able to complete them by tonight or tommorrow.



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Well, for Byrd's evidence, you've got to talk to him. I haven't read enough about those stones yet to make a final decision. The monster depiction on the vase is at best inconclusive. It looks at much as dinosaur, as it looks like one of the standard Greek monsters depictions from the Archaic art period. The appearance of the monster can also be described as a skull, which of course is not what your average living dinosaur looks like. It could also an oversized lizard's skull or a dramatized mammal skull.

You're not going to prove dinosaurs living 2500 years ago with a single picture that slightly resembles a dinosaur.

I'm glad that the corrections are almost done!



posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Here is another link to look at.

www.genesispark.com...

The theory I stand with is that the dinosaurs have died off by both the meteor and by the depleting magnetic field and atmoshere, cold weather, flood etc. Their brains and body mass would slow them down if there was a pole shift. There is science that states that the magnetic field was three time what it currently now is. Man was even larger in some cases.

It's interesting that different regions of the world have dipictions of these types of creatures in their lore or on artifacts, any how even if we never see eye to eye on this matter it's cool that you brought it up.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   
According to the Bible Code account at the Bible Code Website www.onealclan.com (one direct page is to onealclan0.tripod.com...), all dinosaurs were killed prior to humans appearing on the planet. Scientists agree that humans could never have evolved had the dinosaurs not been killed off first.

At the Code website, we learn that isn't only in scientific theory and the hidden text of the Torah, it's in the plain text of Genesis. I don't know how many times I had read that verse and missed it completely.






top topics



 
0

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution