New Evidence to suggest Dinosaurs may still be around!

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

And BTW - Dinosaurs are still around... they're called birds....

THANK YOU!
This is what I don't understand. Everyone gets crazy interested when there is a "stegosaurus" found in a glyph, but no one gives a # about the much cooler realities of life. ... example.. birds !

To be far we should always use "avian dinosaurs" when talking about Aves.
I get in # all the time for defining them "Fn' dinosaurs" instead of avian dinosaurs.

Peer reviewed paper carbon dates soft tissue in dinosaur bone and finds some stunning results! www.plosone.org...

reply to post by painterdude


I don't think you actually read your link or maybe you do not understand.
What do you think was stunning about those results ?

Besides "OMG soft tissue ! this must be like only a year old ".

Pro Tip: That is not what they are saying at all.

Originally posted by l_e_cox
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

You are perfectly free to believe what you want.

But there is a lot of evidence both in lore and in modern research that we have coexisted with ET races at various times on this planet. The most commonly-known invader race were the "reptilians." They apparently posed as gods at various times. There are many stories about them. We could dismiss these stories, I suppose, if it weren't for the modern sightings of them that have been reported. Grays and various near-human types are more commonly reported than reptilians, but many types have been reported.

All I'm saying is that an ancient off-world race would at least have the cultural continuity to recall prehistoric times on earth with enough accuracy to carve a very good likeness of a stegosaurus on one of their temples. And if they had actually done the original genetic engineering on dinosaurs, that would give them even better access to the data.

I have not seen any actual evidence of any beings from other planets living here. Know people quite interested in that area, too, and have read quite a lot myself. Even one (now deceased) friend that talked of being abducted. Your belief is that these aliens were treated as gods. Not uncommon, but how about another possibility? These beings were not "aliens", meaning from some other planet, but were, perhaps, demons. Fallen angels, using a variety of disguises and ruses to mislead and trick people. If you can accept the possibility that your scenario is true, then you should accept the possibility that mine is. I don't think, though, that this has anything to do with dinosaurs. I have, as stated before, seen a human footprint (not Paluxy River ones) in the same layer of stone as dino prints. Verified dino prints. Plus, it isn't just artwork such as this that leads people to believe they could still be around. First, you can look to legends, from many places, about dragons, and the like. Then, you can look to the large number of modern sightings. Creatures that look like seagoing dinosaurs, like a brontosaurus, like pterosaurs, even things looking similar to a velociraptor in Mexico. An episode of the television show, Destination Truth, looked into that, and they found some intriguing tracks, NOT fossil tracks, fresh ones. In PNG, they see a creature the call the ropen. All over parts of the US, people see things. There are tons of sightings in Texas. People see things, that they believe are dinosaurs. If e can accept the possibility that reports of alien sightings are real, we cannot reject the possibility that dinosaur sightings are real. Appreciate the thoughtful reply. Always an interesting discussion!

Scientists have found animals like fish that they previously believed were extinct. It would not be a stretch to believe there are other "extinct" species out there.

I do find it hard to believe that there could be a large dinosaur like a brontosaurus out there. A fish can elude detection, but a large dinosaur cannot. If large dinosaurs still existed, even if they lived in remote regions, they surely would have been spotted.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Scientists have found animals like fish that they previously believed were extinct. It would not be a stretch to believe there are other "extinct" species out there.

I do find it hard to believe that there could be a large dinosaur like a brontosaurus out there. A fish can elude detection, but a large dinosaur cannot. If large dinosaurs still existed, even if they lived in remote regions, they surely would have been spotted.

They have been spotted. That's the key. Not verified by some scientific expedition, maybe, but spotted, and locals accept that they are real animals. Science should always pay attention to the locals; they KNOW what lives in their home territory.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
All over parts of the US, people see things. There are tons of sightings in Texas. People see things, that they believe are dinosaurs. If e can accept the possibility that reports of alien sightings are real, we cannot reject the possibility that dinosaur sightings are real.

Why does no one ever take a clear picture or video of these sightings ?
We should at least be skeptical of all these stories until there is evidence. Judge every case by its merits.

Someone claiming they saw a bear in the forest is not the same as someone saying they saw a UFO or Dinosaur in the forest. Not all claims are equal. It is reasonable to believe person one seen a bear in the forest, because we know bears currently live in forests. It is not reasonable to believe person two for obvious reason.

Eye witness accounts are not worth anything. Even if my mother claimed she saw a UFO or Dinosaur I would be skeptical.

I am breaking this down to show your last sentence is invalid. We should be highly skeptical of both.

human footprint (not Paluxy River ones) in the same layer of stone as dino prints. Verified dino prints.

I would love to see this, even a article trying to make a case for it.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


You would think there would be some credible evidence other than local tall tales. My 5-year-old niece swears she saw the tooth fairy, but I am not about to call this "proof" of the tooth fairy's existence.

Originally posted by TechUnique
Turning 19 yesterday I had a bit of an identity crisis and was scared of getting old. For some reason I went into a tangent and ended up thinking about dinosaurs and then on to whether or not they might still be about today. So I scrolled through Google and found the following. Please feel free to contribute any other evidence you know of or stumble across!

Spread out amongst the dense jungles of Cambodia hide the remains of an ancient and grand civilization. Once inhabited by a people known as the Khmer, today millions of tourists visit the temples at Angkor to get a glimpse of the majesty of this once proud city.

The Khmer began to develop as a unique culture in Cambodia around 2000 years ago.

I finally located the glyph I was searching for near the exit to the complex. Before me, enclosed in a round circle, was a clear depiction of what could only be a stegosaurus.

Source

Could this be evidence for the argument that dinosaurs have at least been around in recent years?

Possibly.

Brilliant post. Never seen that before.
That thing looks like a text book illustration of a stegosaurus. Definitely challenges certain ideas that seem to be "set in stone".

Funny how most of the posts in this thread do not address the fact thst a friggin' stegosaurus was carved on an ancient structure... but instead bring up distractions such as birds being modern day dinosaurs etc.

Also, if "Plenty of other dinosaur fossils have been found in SE Asia, just none resembling a stegosaurus" (as someone said earlier... how does it explain a stegosaurus being carved on that building?

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Funny how most of the posts in this thread do not address the fact thst a friggin' stegosaurus was carved on an ancient structure... but instead bring up distractions such as birds being modern day dinosaurs etc.

Also, if "Plenty of other dinosaur fossils have been found in SE Asia, just none resembling a stegosaurus" (as someone said earlier... how does it explain a stegosaurus being carved on that building?

We are 99.99999% sure that a living stegosaurus was not a model for it because we don't have any stegosaurus fossils from anywhere near that time. Stegosaurus would most likely not even be the stegosaurus anymore because how much time past from the age of stegosaurus and the age of the glyph. It is an absurd idea that that glyph is modeled from a living dinosaurs.

I personally believe it is just a image of a beast of fiction that ended up looking like a stegosaurus.
Other ideas are it is a rhinoceros or reptile.
Some people think maybe they had seen fossils. (I have no idea if this would be possible or not, to lazy to look)

None of it matters because we have never found a stegosaurus dated within 150 million years of the thing ...

Maybe it's as simple as this; most of the cultures listed in the link excelled in the field of paleozoology. www.genesispark.com...

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
That thing looks like a text book illustration of a stegosaurus.

No, it doesnt. At all.
Stegosaurus head is tiny. Pictured head is large.
Stegosaurus tail is long. Pictured tail is short.
Stegosaurus tail has spines on end. Pictured tail has no spines on end.
Stegosaurus hip joint is higher than front 'shoulder' joint. Pictured joints are same height.
Stegosaurus has no visible ears. Pictured animal has large ears.
Stegosaurus has long conical narrowing neck. Pictured animal has fat short neck.
Stegosaurus has no bump on nose. Pictured animal does have bump on nose (and apparently another not visible in that OP's image)
Stegosaurus never lived in that region.

But lets have a look at...
Rhinoceros head is large. Pictured head is large.
Rhinoceros tail is short. Pictured tail is short.
Rhinoceros tail has no spines on end. Pictured tail has no spines on end.
Rhinoceros hip and shoulder joint are the same height. Pictured joints are same height.
Rhinoceros has large ears. Pictured animal has large ears.
Rhinoceros has short fat neck. Pictured animal has fat short neck.
Rhinoceros does have bump(s) on nose. Pictured animal does have bump on nose (and apparently another not visible in that OP's image)
Rhinoceros does indeed live in that region.



Now just add blobby decorative frills around the picture, just like they add around the outer border.

reply to post by painterdude


WTH is that site ?
My head hurts from like 34 seconds of viewing. I am going to sleep.

Give you a hint ..

If a site is claiming a glyph of a quadruped dragon is anything like a bipedal Thecodontosaurus you should probably ignore them when it comes to the subject.

reply to post by alfa1


The stone carving is a simple graphic representation, not a lifelike carving.
Such graphic representations (as seen in cave paintings, hieroglyphs and that stone carving) are not exactly lifelike and are bound to be anatomically "off". But when certain physical traits are depicted in a picture we can start identifying what it is supposed to be.

In this case the stone carving resembles a stegosaurus more than a rhino or anything else, mainly because of the plates lining the back all the way down to the thick tail. The plates are clearly growing out of the animals back and not a decorative element as you say.

Even as a simplified graphic, it definitely looks nothing like a rhino because its missing a horn... the one physical trait that would easily represent a rhino, even in a childs drawing.

New Evidence to suggest Dinosaurs may still be around!
You are correct! Birds I.E. Dinosaurs are my favorite.





Secretary bird.

I do see where your going with the carving but considering the fact ancient civilizations had discovered fossils is not proof they saw the thing in the flesh.

Correct me if im wrong , but isn't it so that crocodiles have basically stayed the same since the period of dinosaurs?

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Scientists have found animals like fish that they previously believed were extinct. It would not be a stretch to believe there are other "extinct" species out there.

I do find it hard to believe that there could be a large dinosaur like a brontosaurus out there. A fish can elude detection, but a large dinosaur cannot. If large dinosaurs still existed, even if they lived in remote regions, they surely would have been spotted.

i actually remember reading an article about this awhile back. was it a fish that was supposed to be extinct like 50,000 years ago?

reply to post by geo1066

now i'd like to have a dose of that enthusiasm..unfortunately, my enthusiasm might have to come in a bottle
and i don't mean drink..i mean vitamins or stuff to fight off depression. will be 60 pretty soon if i can make it.
attitude is everything it is said, well not quite but close.

So science can turn reptiles into birds and at the same time claim a belief in God is delusional ? Just check'in.

I will look for an article I read some time back. Two guards at guantonimo bay. Saw a pteradon or a pteradactyl
or some one threw a lizard at them or something. It was an interesting read I'll be back if I can find it.