Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Could this be real?

  1. Nov 16, 2003 #1
    I know some of these are explainable but what about the pterodactyls at the bottom? It says two of the photographs are in some dinosaur book.


    I know this thing won't work but you should check it out anyway.
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 16, 2003 #2


    User Avatar

    Yep. These guys are nutters. Better yet, fanaticaly religious creationist nutters.

    Let's do photo by photo...

    1. Yes, it is exactly contested. And searches have been conducted. With sonar and everything you can think of. And that Loch Ness is infamous for its unpredictable tides which play on the mind. And that conveniently, none of the pictures give any indication of scale. And that obviously in secluded areas, some animals can escape extinction. Its happened to fish, and we have the repeat of the old BS about evolution being a conspiracy and all...

    2. That is a dolphin. The neck is plainly not a neck because of the way it clear flops about.

    3. Thousands of people want to see it. The psychology of this sort of thing is well documented. Again, no reference for scale.

    4. That's right. It has been mutilated. No wonder it looks monstrous. So who said it was a dino?

    5. Again, no scale reference. And the people at cambridge didn't think much of it. And no reason why it can't be a big fish or anything.

    6. Apparently, these folks haven't heard of decomposition. The "neck" is part of the rib cage, people...

    7. Er wait... It says that reptiles are really dinosaurs in disguise, and it's all a trick by those dastardy evolutionists... Er... okaaayy... Just point out though that if these folks call komodo dragons and indeed all reptiles to be dinosaurs, then evolution doesn't say dinosaurs went extinct. Hell, evolution doesn't say anything about dinos having to be extinct - piles upon piles of paleontological evidence says that.

    (Hmm... can I just point out now that the creationist angle of highlighting left overs is actually utterly irrelevant.)

    8. Chinese peasants are infamous throughout the paleontological community for fabricating haox skeletons, which can only be revealed by careful xrays. They sell for $50 dollar a dozen.

    9. Haox. The picture of the head is that of a bald eagle. The pictures also directly rebut the text, which says the creature is the size of a small plane, whilst here... its not. Hang glider in the second case most likely.

    Still, good to know that these folks have finally cottoned on to the existence of dinosaurs these days, after saying all this time they are made up to oppose the bible....
  4. Nov 16, 2003 #3
    what about the civil war pictures im pretty sure one is fake but the other two are said to be in a scientific dinosaur book. Yup these people are bit fanatic/borderline retarded when it comes to bible talk. I forgot to mention to look under the live dragon pics link at the bottom left corner thats where the pterodactyl pics are.
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2003
  5. Nov 16, 2003 #4


    User Avatar

    Well, the link given is far from scientific. (Words like "Spiritual Parody" and claims that "Scientists break speed of light" or "Thermodynamics means everything grows old and wears out" do not good science make.)

    Checking up on the book mentioned seems to make it clear that the source was misrepresented and taken out of context. In fact, the site linked to does admit the possibility that some of the photos were staged haoxes, though this is glossed over. From review on Amazon...

    And Wellnhoffer also wrote a book on the evolution of dinosaurs....
  6. Nov 16, 2003 #5
    I have posted on this before, though it related to Herodotus' account of having seen flying reptiles in Egypt and Arabia. I still have not made up my mind about that, but the site provided is really grasping at straws. The lake Champlain monster shown could be a dark bird at an odd angle, or a hoax, of course. It's kinda like seeing pictues in clouds, but the neck would be one wing and body would be the other, and I can't really make out the body of the 'bird' or the direction it was flying, but I hope you see what I mean. I do want to point out that I am religious and see several flaws with evolution, but it is really more of quabling over semantics. I would just love it if they found an actual dino. I did hear of a report, I think I read it was 1915, of some German sub (if it was a Uboat then I got the date wrong or the source was fanatical and wrong) that had just sunk a british ship, and for some reason they had surfaced(I don't know if they usually did that, but I doubt it) and the Captain and some of the crew saw a great sea monster rise up out of the water, apparently it had been injured, and then sink back in. It happened fast enough that they didn't get a picture, but if they would have I'm sure it would have turned out to be swamp gas anyway , and I don't know if it made a noise. I f I can find a site that mentions it, I will edit this post and put it here. If this story is true, I think it would be the most credible ever.
    As to the Lock Ness monster, I am not impressed by the fact that they haven't found it, because if on the off chance the monster can hear or feel the sound of the sonar, it/they will spend the whole day out-running the ships because I imagine it would be an unpleasant sensation. Keep in mind that they can't possibly, or at least haven't as far as I know, line up enough ships to seep the whole cross section and then length of the lock, which then leaves plenty of run for the monster/s to go around the few ships without detection to a side of the lock they've alrady covered. Then again that would have to be one warm blooded, blubbery animal to keep from freezing in that lock.
    I have not read it all yet, it doesn't seem too extreme from what I've skimmed, if you don't want to read it all the part I'm posting about is in section III:B,C;but the whole thing looks like a good, but of course I should add having not read it, possibly wrong, read. FZ+, I would like to know your take on, well, all of section C, since it is so short. I've heard of those human and dino tracks before, but never enough to even begin to decide on their truth or hoaxness (if I may be so bold as to make up my own words).
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2003
  7. Nov 17, 2003 #6
    Hey, Jonathan, just because you are religious, it doesn't mean you can't spot a hoax when you see one, does it? You and lots of people would like the world to be different from what it is, but odds are, all of this stuff will continue to be nonsense.
  8. Nov 17, 2003 #7
    I don't understand your question, esp. given that I pointed out in my previous post that the Lake Champlain monster picture could easily be a bird. Did you go to the website and look? If you think about it, you kinda see it. It could also be a boomarang that was moving fast enough to blur during the time it took to take the picture. In fact i occurs to me now that I have seen the picture before, that is not all of it, this is a blow up, you can see the other side of the lake in the whole one, and the witness claims that it was at 150ft, which fits roughly with the picture. That means that the bird would have had to have a 6 foot wingspan (I got that number from the TV show I now remember seeing, it was a skeptic who came up with it, I assume he used trig). Maybe this is actually a picture of a pterodactyl at an odd angle.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2003
  9. Nov 17, 2003 #8
    Sorry, I made a mistake, the part I was refering to in that link is IV:B:4:C
    *EDIT* I just looked it up and found that Uboats did exist in 1917, and the date was 1915, so that isn't too far off, so they likely did exist then.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2003
  10. Nov 26, 2003 #9
    The very fact that they say "dragons aren't extinct" shows that they're dumbasses, since dragons never existed in the first place.

    about 2, I disagree that it's a dolphin, the head is far too large in comparison to the people to be that of a dolphin, assuming the picture is totally genuine, i can't tell what it is. I do however, know that pleasiasaur breathed air and could support themselves out of water. The way the neck is all flacid is sort of how invertibrates look when washed up on land, whiel pleasiasaur had strong enough skeletal structures to support themselves out of water.

    about 6, I'm curious to see what kind of animal you think that is, the flippers are bigger than those of a sperm whale would be, if only there were photos of its hind quarters...

    about http://www.anzwers.org/free/livedragons/fish_prehistoric.jpg
    It's a stergeon...
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2003
  11. Nov 27, 2003 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Don't be so sure, young grasshopper.
    http://www.honoluluzoo.org/images/komodo-tw.jpg [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  12. Nov 27, 2003 #11
    Yeah, and here's a photo of Jesus http://www.serraschool.org/StudentWork/Projects02-03/7AnimalKingdom/run.jpg [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  13. Nov 27, 2003 #12
    LOL, I was expecting an actual painting of Jesus. (BTW, that would be funny to me because he is always depicted as white despite how that would make him stick out like a sore thumb in amongst the Middle Easterners, making it not too hard for the Pharisees to find him themselves, thereby negating Judas' role in the Bible. I know, I'm dull and think stupid stuff is funny.)
  14. Nov 27, 2003 #13


    User Avatar

    To my knowledge, this has been dismissed by all the experts that looked at it. No independent confirmations given.

    This is stretching credulity a bit. The same people also claimed that winged horses existed, that you can wear helmets that make you invisible, certain lizards (or dinosaurs?) can turn you into stone, tribes of amazon warriors exist, the christian God is false. Funny how they gloss over this bits. In short, the myths of early man are many and varied. Select some, and you can "prove" anything.
    Krakens are generally thought to be like giant, man eating, ship attacking squids.

    But there are also passive sonar systems installed, such as hydrophones that are sensitive enough to detect Russian submarines that are designed for stealth. Early accounts also detail monsters which actively attacked vessels. This has not been found.

    Consider how they would have detected such a monster. If they used sonar or any such hydrophones, the explosion would have messed things up majorly. If the ship was exploding, he would easily be confusing it with additional spray or debris. Also, it seems very plausible that the captain was merely using a metaphor.


    The account misinforms on a number of details. Roy Mackal et al went to look for the "monster", which was first reported in the 1900s. The dinosaur was picked out as bearing the most resemblance out of a selection of creatures - and we don't know what that selection was. And no conclusive evidence was ever found, only eyewitness accounts from superstituous tribesmen.

    Intriguing. Cue another misunderstanding of basic evolutionary theory.

    Notice the common factor. Rotting, stinking, half digested and more or less unrecognisable...

    Darwin is dead now. Does that help? :wink:
  15. Nov 28, 2003 #14
    As to the carvings in the Grand Canyon(as I hear that is where they were specifically), I had not heard of them before I visited there, so I didn't get to look into it, but I bet that it is a bit of a strech to see a dinosaur in the carving, and is probably like seeing shapes in clouds.
    That whole Nebachadnezzar thing is just stupid, if I can make up animals, so could he.
    FZ+, the hydrophone thing you mention doesn't make sense, if I had a perfect hydrophone that could hear everything, it wouldn't matter because I would undoubtably have a noisy engine on board, since I'd be out at sea, and it would probably drown out the noise of deep sea monsters or something. Also, it is my opinion that the claims of actual attacks by monsters were made up for drama, that in fact they probably found the bodies of monsters washed ashore (or maybe they were sailing and saw the bodies adrift, whatever).
    Unless I'm confused (it's been awhile since I've read this thread), that part about the 60 foot monster was in the account of the Uboat captain. He did not use hydrophones or sonar to see it, he was for whatever reason on the surface and alledgedly saw the monster. The loudness of the explosion doesn't effect his sight I assume. As to it being a metaphor, that didn't occur to me, though it seems weird to use a metaphor in the captain's log. Being that he is German, we don't really know what it says, because of translation errors and the possibility that it was never written at all, since I've never seen the documentation.
    Yes, that monsndfl-msohdsn monster could just be in their traditions, not their swamp. I'll go to that website you gave in a second.
    I no longer remember the comment about Arthur and evolution (I'll have to go back and reread it), but I feel I should mention that I have a very strong understanding of evolution (scientific family, sister is an anthropologist), but I don't like it. I don't like that it is presented as fact when it is still only a theory, and I know that at its core it is incapable of making predictions, so from my veiw that makes it a pretty worthless theory at that, also esp. given that many of it's postdictions are almost speculatory in nature.
    Yes, if it is unrecognizable, it is as much dinosaur as blob of seaweed.
    LOL, Darwin is dead! Oddly enough, I remember hearing somewhere that by the end of his life he no longer believed in evolution, is this true? I think that would be pretty damning, esp. if we knew the reason why he disliked it.
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2003
  16. Nov 28, 2003 #15
    I just got back from that site, and you are right, that didn't occur to me, I have never heard what the other pictures were of. Given that they knew that the monster was, by nature of being called a monster, large, they need only have shown photographs of obvious things like bugs and song birds, and then a drawing of a dinosaur, and the natives would immeadiatly pick the dinosaur as being most similar amoung those shown.
  17. Nov 28, 2003 #16
    This is all fake.
  18. Nov 28, 2003 #17
    what it says about dragons and how evolution is a hoax is fake, I know that, im talking about the pictures.
  19. Nov 28, 2003 #18
    The pics are fakes too, or interpreted in the way they choose...the way you can see animals in the clouds. From any other angle, those pics probably look like something completely different.
  20. Nov 28, 2003 #19
    Well thanks for clearing that up Zero, that is only what every other post in this thread said.
  21. Nov 28, 2003 #20
    I'm glad you liked it...why don't you have a seat and I can explain all sorts of obvious things to you that you don't understand, huh?
  22. Nov 29, 2003 #21
    Good one.
  23. Nov 29, 2003 #22


    User Avatar

    No, not like that. What they in fact have is a series of hydrophones, in a network covering the coast of the US, and some more important bases. They then have sophisticated filters to find anamolous readings - they frequently detect whales and so forth. And because of the superposition of sound waves, the detectors are very good at sorting one source from another.

    Have you seen one of those U-Boat films? They are pretty authentic. See the huge splash when a depth charge explodes? I assume that something like a ship exploding would be bigger. The results would certainly obscure his vision, especially if he was close.

    Well, the originals didn't make many predictions, true. But the theory has been tighted up greatly in recent years, we can indeed make some predictions - about the rate at which bacterial resistancies appear, for example. And each fossil we find can be seen as a prediction - eg. the existence of a bird/dinosaur hybrid was predicted by evolution, before two fossils were found confirming just that. And the prediction of biological heredity did hold out.

    No. And generally good scientists don't go for arguments from authority. No one cares, for example, what Einstein later thought of QM. The work has gone way beyond Darwin, anyways.
  24. Nov 30, 2003 #23
    1) Oh, I see, I misunderstood.
    2) (above)
    3) Well, yes, those types of predictions didn't occur to me as I wrote. I was thinking along bigger, more complex lines. As to the bird/dino thing, that really wasn't a prediction, it was one of a few subsets or versions of what may have happened, and it turned out that that one appears to be true. If they still hadn't found those fossils even today, I think just as many people would believe today. I think this because evolution is one of those theories that is almost impossible to disprove, unless one finds something blatantly wrong with it (they would have done that hundreds of years ago). But once a theory like evolution gets to it's age, it's hard to topple, and possibly for good reason.
    4) Oh. But still, if he had, I would like to know the reason. Of course he was only a man, and one shouldn't just take his word for it, but if he changed his mind you'd think it was for a good reason.
    And that example you gave of Einstein doesn't fit really well, because he didn't come up with QM. (Well, neither did Darwin come up with evolution, he stole the idea, but he did like it in the beginning (and apparently in the end too), but Einstein never liked QM.)
  25. Nov 30, 2003 #24


    User Avatar

    Well, I think he did. He wrote the 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect that established the photon theory of light, and turned Planck's fudging of the equation into a real theory. He only really became disillusioned when people like Heisenberg and Bohr came up with conclusions that apparently conflicted with his own determinist view of the world.
  26. Dec 1, 2003 #25
    I disagee, he obviously didn't unerstand the flood gates he was opening. It was Planck, Bohr, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger's doing. Einstein layed the foundation. Kinda like: the guy who invented math didn't invent the computer, but there'd be no computers without him.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook