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.


Pic of dinosaur?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 8 2003 @ 09:31 PM
Im almost sure some of you have seen it but just in case here it is:

Thoughts? I think its too good to be true, but Ill still say what I think it is. It would appear to be Mokele-mbembe. As I said before, looks too good to be true.

posted on Apr, 8 2003 @ 09:33 PM
Shoot. Didnt come out. Heres the link:

posted on Apr, 8 2003 @ 10:23 PM
It does look to good to be real, and the fact that it is so blurry leads me to think it is a fake.

Ive never seen that one before though, thanks.

posted on Apr, 8 2003 @ 10:33 PM
A very interesting photo. Unfortunately, it is very blurry, which makes it suspect.

The animal depicted appears to be a Brontosaur, or some closely related species. To be fair, it does appear to be consistent with the latest theories on brontosaur physiognomy (IE, the face seems to be flat, with a high forehead, suggesting high mounted nostrils). Also, we do have evidence that Brontosaur was at least partially aquatic.

However, the main problem I see with the "long lost dinosaur" theory is, where the hell are the rest of them? Anyone who knows much about biology will know that for a specific population to exist for any extended period of time (and this would be over 65 million years!) it takes more than just one reproducing pair.

The specific size of the survivor population depends on many variables, such as proclivity for reproduction, average number of offspring, survivability, suitability of environment, longevity, ect. Therefore, a survivor population could range from dozens to hundreds. For a population to survive for 65 million years, it would take hundreds to thousands.

Then comes the question of why wasnt it discovered before? I can buy that some populations may remain unknown for extended periods, based on size of the animal, the specific environment, and its average intelligence (I personally believe that it is very possible for a survivor population of Sasquatch to exist, as they seem to exhibit considerable intelligence and live in very secluded and hard to access environments).

However, an animal this size, requiring a very sizable survivor population for that long a period, I find it VERY hard to believe they wouldnt have been found long ago. There is also the fact that Brontos had very voracious appetites: If a survivor population did exist, they would have denuded large swathes of vegetation, thereby giving themselves away. Also, I find it hard to believe that ANY population is going to exist for 65 million years without some very substantial mutation/evolution, essentially changing thier very form.

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 01:30 AM
It's fake, because the dinosaurs tail goes down into the water, and instead of seeing the tail reflect back in the opposite direction on the water, it shows the tail going down into the water, so for being a pretty blurry picture, the water sure is clear.

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 02:36 AM
How could so much mass be out of the water unless its standing on its feet?

Why it is blury?
... not even a good attempt!

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 04:28 AM
Look's like a fake Nessie pic to me ...

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 05:40 AM
DragonRider, you bring up some interesting points. Mokele-mbembe was suppossedly spotted in a very secluded part of Africa. In the rain forest, very distant from civilization. There is a tribe (dont recall the name) that has reportedly seen these creatures many times. DeadInside, there is a reflection. It could be blurry because the dino is moving through the water pretty fast, or so it seems. I still think its too good to be true.

[Edited on 9-4-2003 by Tetsuo-51]

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 07:41 AM
NetChicken, when I take a good look at the pic, it does seem to be standing in the water. Even when I zoom in on the pic I cannot find any faults, I even see eyes and a mouth. If its a hoax, it is indeed a good quality one.

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 07:45 AM
Another explanation for the blurryness. The cameraman could have been running away from this creature. Im not saying that I believe the pic is real, but I do like a good debate

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 08:24 AM

Mokele-mbembe has been described as an animal with a long neck, a long tail, and rounded shape tracks with three claws. The closest known animal that has these characteristics is a sauropod dinosaur.

It is believed that Mokele-mbembe is a living sauropod dinosaur that lives in the Likouala swamp region of the Republic of Congo. When some of the local people of the Likouala region would draw in the dirt or sand a representation of Mokele-mbembe they drew the shape of a sauropod dinosaur. Then when they were shown a picture of a sauropod dinosaur they said that picture is Mokele-mbembe.

Mokele-mbembe means "One that stops the flow of rivers." French priest in the region called it "monstrous animal." Mokele-mbembe is also used as a generic term to refer to other animals like Emela-ntouka, Mbielu-mbielu-mbielu, and Nguma-monene.

More : Link

Another link : CLICK

Many stories and pictures from monsters ( I didn't find Saddam Hussein
) all around the world.

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 08:32 AM
I can't seem to access the site, I keep getting a message saying "web-page is unavailable"

Can anyone post the pic on here?

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 08:40 AM
Go to that site. Youll find the pic under Dinosaurs. Sorry, I tried to put the pic up but it wouldnt show up.

[Edited on 9-4-2003 by Tetsuo-51]

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 09:12 AM

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 09:54 AM
man look at the curved back of that thing. It looks perfectly smooth. A normal dinosaur has a spinal colum (spell
) and therefore it can't have a nice curved back like on that pic.

It seems to be very flat, it looks like it's a wooden triplex board, you can buy at any hardware store. I just can't make out any contrast in that pic.

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 01:21 PM
I agree with Zion and E-non: it's most likely one of the old Nessie hoax pictures (and it's blurry because they took it from a moving car...) It looks the way we thought brontosauruses looked -- better skeletal finds have led us to the knowledge that they didn't look like that.

Plus, the ripples show it's a fairly small object (about the size of a car)

I don't have a good reference book of Nessie sightings, but I do believe that this is what the photograph is.

P.S.... the ripples don't look like they're folding around the object, either.

[Edited on 9-4-2003 by Byrd]


posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 02:30 PM
their is no wake in the water... if it's blurry cause the dino is moving, then it should be making noticible wake, but it's not making one at all.

it's obviously fake.

posted on Apr, 9 2003 @ 03:27 PM
Looks fake to me. The water is not moving it is still plus it like Zion said too smooth. I would expect to see some ridge.

posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 10:08 AM
It a fake, hoax, bs. Sorry, but they trying to trick people. Anyways, I'm done, bye!

posted on May, 2 2003 @ 05:46 AM
Ever noticed how these types of photographs are always blurred? Even the background is blurred, this should tell us something. Where was this photograph reputedly taken? The background vegetation does not look right to be taken in Afica. Also the shadow of the creature on the water seems to indicate that the sun is above the middle of the picture frame. However the shadow of the trees in the background seems to indicate the sun is to the right of the picture frame.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in