It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Civil War pterosaur

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 06:18 AM
I know most of you are thinking this was proven fake years ago, but the fake was a staged copy of the original.

A good write up can be read HERE

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 06:49 AM
reply to post by kingofmd

Hey, it's an interesting story, but I think no more than that. Reading through the blog I'd say the only pictures that haven't seen photoshop are the ones of the Squid/Octopus, the grey-haired guy just to the left of that, the JFK, knoll shot and the black and white civil war photo - all the Pterosaur photo's are shopped and the one highlighting the fact that all the bits are in the right places - well that's kinda what you'd expect from someone modelling one.

Cool story though.

I might point you to these threads:

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 08:56 AM
Well, rather than simply saying it is photo shopped, I will attempt to use a logical reasoning to debunk that photo.

Up front I will admit, I love the idea of the civil war pterodactyl photos. It really is ultra cool concept.


Ok I have seen and held Civil War era rifles, and I have inspected the type of ammunition they used.

They typically used wooden pellets and bullets, and sometimes iron pellets.

The point is, a pterodactyl has a thick hide, as it is a overgrown reptile from a bygone era.

These civil war era rifles simply do not have the punching power to pierce through the thick hide of a mature pterodactyl.

Also, due to the shape of the ammunition being fire, either in a round spherical pellet or with the cork shaped pellets; the physics are not sufficient to allow such a shaped object at such low velocities to pierce such thick hide.

I use an Elephant's hide as my reference source, despite the fact it is a mammal. It is large and has a thick hide.

There is a reason they invented the "Elephant Gun" Keep This in Mind!

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 09:04 AM
Shouldn't this be in hoaxes?

I like the dinosaurs vs civil war soldiers premise - might make a decent movie. There's a lack of supporting evidence and the photos are clearly shopped, so I'm not a believer.

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:02 PM
I think this photo is pretty interesting myself.

As for validity I do not know. I have simply always thought it interesting.

But as for things looking somewhat faked I think this photo looks a bit odd. Not saying it is fake but that it looks odd.

Click to view

It might just be the way the shadows look in the older photography.

Oddly enough this looks eerily familiar to the photo being discussed in the OP.

OP photo.


Mod edit: Removed hot link to over-sized image.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Gemwolf]

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:39 AM
reply to post by Raist

But as for things looking somewhat faked I think this photo looks a bit odd. Not saying it is fake but that it looks odd.

hi - do you have any info on the provenance of the pic ?

because if you dont - one thing to be wary of - is the question :

is it a picture taken very recently by a ACW re-enactment group , that is being intentionaly or uninentionally miss represented ?

i am making no claim that it is - merely raising the question / posibility that may rquire some further investigation

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 04:11 AM
reply to post by kingofmd

i must disagree - thats an absolutley crap write up

thier ` train of evidence ` is a veritable train wreck of sensationalist nonsence , that does not actually offer any evidence of substance

in no particular order :

they produce NO evidence what so ever for the existance of the photo before the 1960s .

even thier evidence for its 60s publication = ripleys believe it or not - a text not remotely committed to the truth - rather sensationalism [ spot a patern ]

the details of the photo are largely accademic anyway

if you believe the story you have to accept that thier was a Ptresaur flying around vicksburg in 1864 - and obviously - that one required 2 parents , and thus an unbroken genealogy back to the cretateous period

even the cop out that ` it was the last of its kind ` - does not diminish the question - where were its kin and ancestors from the mid 16th century upto 1864 ????????????????

i guess the ` evil powers that be ` were exceedingly busy - even then sestroying all evidence - but wait - why would they destroy evidence of a creature that was not officially found till 1870 ?

such are the illogical leaps you have to make to put any credence in this pic

and lastly - the blogosphere hates citicism - we [ ATS ] have already been denounced as disinfo - go figure

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 04:36 AM
I remember there being an ATS picture hunt for something similar to these a while back, the elusive thunderbird nailed to a barn pic, dont think it was ever found although loads of ATSers seemed to remember seeing it in older 'unexplained mystery' type books. If im not mistaken the research within this thread revealed the confederate soldiers pics to be fake (but i could be wrong). Sorry for not linking the thread i just sort of jumped in on this one.

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 08:14 AM
reply to post by ignorant_ape

No idea really. It is one I found on the web Google images to be exact. IU was using ti as an example. Really I found all the images through the same search. The top photo though I have seen before.

The last two look very close. The last makes me wonder (thanks to your post) if it is not a reenactment of the one just above it.

I have no clue about any of the photos though. Some of them look fake. They all look interesting.


posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by kingofmd

Thanks for posting that article! I have debated those two pictures with some hard headed skeptics for literally years now, and they refuse to see the truth. The second, fake, picture was done for a program called "Freaky Links", but is nowhere near as authentic-looking for the men as is the first, and the "pterosaur" in the second looks like a collapsed kite. The first, though, looks remarkably real.

Some years back, my brother and I saw something that could have been one of these. It was late at night (very common for us), and we were outside talking. Saw something really large (6-10 feet) flying around across the street. Both of us were, and are, quite familiar with various water birds, bats, birds of prey, etc, and this was none of those. Plus, there was something really menacing about it. It scared us both, and we didn't scare easily. That particular event has already been detailed to a researcher in the field, and should be in an upcoming book.

Too many people report seeing these things to dismiss them out of hand.

posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 04:19 PM

Originally posted by muzzleflash
The point is, a pterodactyl has a thick hide, as it is a overgrown reptile from a bygone era.

So, where is the pterodactyl hide you examined for that bit of information? We have no such artifacts. Logically speaking, the hide of a flying creature would NOT be thick at all, but thinner, and thus lighter in weight. A think hide on such an animal would make no sense at all.

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:08 AM

Originally posted by Raist

But as for things looking somewhat faked I think this photo looks a bit odd. Not saying it is fake but that it looks odd.

Click to view image

If you look at the picture, the colored soldier sitting on the ground is fuzzy with the background but none of the other soldiers are fuzzy. Interestingly, that African American soldier sitting there is the same range away from the camera as the others. Soooo...I don't know what to say but it looks fishy? It might be because he's off to the side but I'm no photography specialist.

Actually, he might just have been moving. As with the soldier walking on the opposite side of the picture. Still, it stuck out to me though.

Mod Edit: Removed hot-linked oversized image.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Gemwolf]

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 08:58 AM
I believe those with any sort of blur moved.

It is my understanding that the exposure (I think that is the right term) took a very long time during that era. What I mean is they had to sit still for a long time before the photo actually took.

I was talking with someone about blurry photos from that era and they said they people moved at some time.


new topics

top topics


log in