http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm
The carving in question:
http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/4809/trackscambodiastegasarus7bf.jpg
The conclusion:
The obvious indication is that the stone carvers of the tenth century saw a stegosaurus as they saw monkeys, buffalo and deer.
Obviously. 🙄 Never mind the huge body of evidence this contradicts. Let's just jump to an outrageous conclusion with no proof so we can get publicity.
Now assuming that the carving isn't a fake (considering no pictures were taken before it was 'cleaned' this is indeed an assumption) let us make a quick comparison:
http://img435.imageshack.us/img435/8370/s113stegosaurusa2gm.jpg
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/1953/lcccf5oy.jpg
Which one looks more like the carving, the chameleon which were known to exist at the time and location the carving was made or the stegosaurus?
PS. I used to draw werewolves and unicorns (and occasionaly wereicorns) when I was younger. I guess we must coexist with them too.
Originally posted by XanthosNZWrite a letter to the author (s) outlining your concerns.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm
The carving in question:
http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/4809/trackscambodiastegasarus7bf.jpg
The conclusion:
The obvious indication is that the stone carvers of the tenth century saw a stegosaurus as they saw monkeys, buffalo and deer.
Obviously. 🙄 Never mind the huge body of evidence this ...[text shortened]... orns (and occasionaly wereicorns) when I was younger. I guess we must coexist with them too.
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou're stealing my material. This point has been discussed before complete with actual photographs of barbarians with dinosaurs!
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm
The carving in question:
http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/4809/trackscambodiastegasarus7bf.jpg
The conclusion:
The obvious indication is that the stone carvers of the tenth century saw a stegosaurus as they saw monkeys, buffalo and deer.
Obviously. 🙄 Never mind the huge body of evidence this orns (and occasionaly wereicorns) when I was younger. I guess we must coexist with them too.
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=31993&page=1
Note my post on page three concerning Thai restaurant menus and Bulgarian postage stamps' to wit:
Dr. Dino has got your question all figured out, Dr. Scribbles:
Here’s a Thai restaurant that has a picture of a boat from Thailand with a dragon head on it. Thai legends talk about dragon slayers. A Russian medallion shows a man slaying a dragon. A Bulgarian postage stamp shows a man killing a dragon. Many national heroes in these ancient older countries are dragon slayers. I think dinosaurs lived all through history all the way up to 600 BC.
If there's a Bulgarian postage stamp with a picture of a dragon on it, that's proof positive they existed up until the founding of modern Bulgaria in the mid 1800's. Just like the fact that there's a picture of Legolas on my grandson's happy meal box proves that elves helped defeat the forces of the Evil Lord Sauron after Ray Kroc opened the first McDonald's in the 1950's.
Well, the difference is that dragon's are mythological beings so they exist in the imaginary of those who depicted them and who saw depictions of them. Most people imagine similar shapes of dragons, obviously influenced by previous depictions that they saw.
If there is no such mythological beast in Cambodjan ancient folklore, this an interesting carving. I'm not saying that they saw a stegosaurus, but still it is quite a coincidence.
As for the chameleon, it doesn't look like the carving in question to me. Even with the leaves in the background.
Originally posted by PalynkaThe carving lacks a Thagomizer*, a very characteristic trait of a stegosaurus. Also the head is much too large to even vaguely represent the dinosaur. As for the chameleon I posted not looking like the picture how about this one?
Well, the difference is that dragon's are mythological beings so they exist in the imaginary of those who depicted them and who saw depictions of them. Most people imagine similar shapes of dragons, obviously influenced by previous depictions that they saw.
If there is no such mythological beast in Cambodjan ancient folklore, this an interesting carving. ...[text shortened]... , it doesn't look like the carving in question to me. Even with the leaves in the background.
http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/4935/normalcnamaquensis13uy.jpg
Also note that many of the other carvings have patterns behind them, could the 'spines' really just be a pattern much like the one on the buffalo?
*The tail spikes. Interesting story on the name of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thagomizer
Originally posted by XanthosNZYes, this one looks more like it.
The carving lacks a Thagomizer*, a very characteristic trait of a stegosaurus. Also the head is much too large to even vaguely represent the dinosaur. As for the chameleon I posted not looking like the picture how about this one?
http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/4935/normalcnamaquensis13uy.jpg
Also note that many of the other carvings have patterns beh ...[text shortened]... he tail spikes. Interesting story on the name of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thagomizer
As for the tail spikes and the head, no representation is accurate, but the same could be said about the chameleon (head and body length also don't seem right).
I also think that it is probably a pattern. Do they have a larger picture with the representations that surround this one?
Originally posted by Palynkahttp://img68.imageshack.us/img68/4269/trackscambodiagsascale9sk.jpg
Yes, this one looks more like it.
As for the tail spikes and the head, no representation is accurate, but the same could be said about the chameleon (head and body length also don't seem right).
I also think that it is probably a pattern. Do they have a larger picture with the representations that surround this one?
Originally posted by XanthosNZWere there any paleontological discoveries of dinosaurs in the 10th century? If not, then the question is how else did they know about these creatures (provided that the chameleon theory doesn’t hold water)? Or are the chances quite good that your drawings of werewolves will yield similar fossils in the near future?
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm
The carving in question:
http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/4809/trackscambodiastegasarus7bf.jpg
The conclusion:
The obvious indication is that the stone carvers of the tenth century saw a stegosaurus as they saw monkeys, buffalo and deer.
Obviously. 🙄 Never mind the huge body of evidence this ...[text shortened]... orns (and occasionaly wereicorns) when I was younger. I guess we must coexist with them too.
Originally posted by XanthosNZYour chameleon theory makes sense though there are many other possible animals it could be. It doesnt actually look that much like a stegasarus. If they were common place in the 10th century then they would be recorded in more places than one stone carving in cambodia. Remember also that the carving is only about a hands width accross.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm
The carving in question:
http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/4809/trackscambodiastegasarus7bf.jpg
The conclusion:
The obvious indication is that the stone carvers of the tenth century saw a stegosaurus as they saw monkeys, buffalo and deer.
Obviously. 🙄 Never mind the huge body of evidence this ...[text shortened]... orns (and occasionaly wereicorns) when I was younger. I guess we must coexist with them too.
