Make of this what you will.

Rubecula

Dinos lasted until human times???

http://truedinos.webnode.com/artifacts/evidence-from-south-america/

steddyeddy

I have heard stories about dinosaurs existing into a historical time for a while now. I dont know what to think of it to be honest! Here is an article from website (pretty sure its creationist run) saying that the dragon legend was inspired by surviving dinosaurs.

The dragon . . . one of the principle and most powerful, prevalent symbols of history as we know it. How could such reverential, awe-inspiring creatures of man's simple imagination have such an impact upon almost every civilization of the past? Could it be, just perhaps, that what countless numbers of people have written about through the course of time could have been actual, living animals? To some this seems absurd, but when all the facts and truths are put together, much more than myth and legend are revealed.


Introduction

To test this assertion, we will now examine the issue by considering the written evidence that has survived from the records of various ancient peoples that describe, sometimes in most graphic detail, human encounters with living giant reptiles that we today would call dinosaurs. And as we shall see, some of those records are not so ancient.

First, however, let's briefly look at the common "dragon knowledge" we read from our history books. The ancient Norsemen adorned the prows of their vessels with carved likenesses of dragons. Among the Celtic conquerors of Britain the dragon was a symbol of sovereignty. Dragons were also depicted on the shields of the Teutonic tribes that later invaded Britain, and it appeared on the battle standards of the English kings as late as the 16th century. Beginning in the early 20th century, it was inscribed on the armorial bearings of the Prince of Wales.

The dragon also figures in the mythology of various Oriental countries, notably Japan and China. It is deified in the Daoist (Taoist) religion and was the national emblem of the Chinese Empire. Among the Chinese people, the dragon is traditionally regarded as a symbol of good fortune.[1]

More than myths and legends, however, we find a numerous amount of accurate historical accounts of "dinosaur-like" dragons from all around the world.

Following from source [2]

---

FRANCE

The city of Nerluc was renamed in honor of the killing of a "dragon" there. This animal was bigger than an ox and had long, sharp, pointed horns on its head. There were a number of different horned dinosaurs. The Triceratops is one example.

---

ITALY

A scientist named Ulysses Aldrovandus carefully described a small "dragon" seen along a farm road in northern Italy. The date was May 13, 1572. The poor, rare creature was so small that a farmer killed it just by knocking it on the head with his walking stick.

The animal had done nothing wrong but hiss at the farmer's oxen as they approached it on the road. The scientist got the dead body and made measurements and a drawing. He even had the animal mounted for a museum. It had a long neck, a very long tail and a fat body.

The skeletons of a number of ancient reptile-like creatures match this basic description.

---

CHINA

Thousands of dragon stories and pictures can be found in ancient Chinese books and art. One interesting legend tells about a famous Chinese man named Yu. After the great world flood, Yu surveyed the land of China and divided it into sections. He "built channels to drain the water off to the sea" and helped make the land livable again. Many snakes and "dragons" were driven from the marshlands when Yu created the new farmlands.

Ancient Chinese books even tell of a family that kept "dragons" and raised babies. It is said that in those days, Chinese kings used "dragons" for pulling royal chariots on special occasions, a fact of which famous explorer Marco Polo himself attested to.

---

Adam Khor

Oh my... ok here's my thoughts on it all. First of all I'd like to point out that Mexico is in North America, not Central or South America, as implied in the article...

Many researchers have been unable to identify the animal and have concluded it must be a Caiman, a large Crocodialian species from South America. Yet the figure does not resemble a Caiman nearly as much at it does another type of reptile. The creature on the sculpture most strongly resembles a Theropod dinosaur such as a Tyrannosaurus. The long neck, large eyes and teeth, and long tail, along with it's bipedal stance and "hands" all point to the creature being a Theropod dinosaur instead of a Caiman, indicating the Colima people of Mexico were familiar with these animals at the time of Christ.

Really? That creature looks absolutely nothing like a caiman, and even less like a tyrannosaur. Where are the teeth they mention? The face looks more like a frog than anything, but considering the tail, it probably represents a lizard or snake, which are extremely common in Colima and very often represented by Colima's ancient culture.

Also, I don´t know if there were any caiman around back at the time but today, the crocodilians native to Colima are exclusively crocodiles, with caimans being restricted to the southernmost states of Mexico.

I thought by now everyone knew the Acámbaro figurines were a hoax... apparently the first ones were authentic (and who knows what they depicted) but when herr Julsrud, the man who first found the figurines, started paying the locals for every additional piece they found and gave him, of course the locals took advantage and somehow found literally thousands of these things, each stranger than the next.
I bet if Julsrud hadn´t offered money for every figurine, we wouldn´t be talking about these things nowadays.

An Acambaro piece that seems to depict an Apatosaurus, a type of Sauropod that although famous, was little understood when first discovered. The figurine also depicts it with a long, narrow head. Until the 1970's it was thought that Apatosaurus had a short, box shaped head, yet these figurines were discovered long before this was known or corrected.

Oh, so they knew Apatosaurus well enough to depict its head decently yet everything else in the body is off...

Here is another figurine from the Acambaro collection. This particular one is clearly depicting a plesiosaur. It even shows scales on the animal as well as other anatomical features that are all correct.

Since when are crocodile-like plates and a head like a rubber ducky correct for a plesiosaur?

This is another clay model from Acambaro. It strongly resembles an Ankylosaurus. As with many of the Acambaro figurines, this one depicts a species of Dinosaur in great detail including an armored back and a tail with a club tip.

Unfortunately, the spiked tail club seems identical to that of the no longer valid dinosaur genus Scolosaurus, which was mistakenly depicted with a spikey tail club by Baron Nopcsa in 1928. So this figurine was most likely based on an outdated Scolosaurus picture by whoever did the figurine. Post-1928.

The creature shown on this ancient Nazcan vase is some sort of reptilian monster. It may depict what is known as a Postosuchus, considered an ancestor to the Dinosaurs. As if these art works didn't already upset Evolutionary time frames enough.

It baffles me how creationist always ask you "if we are evolved from apes then how come there are still apes living today??", yet they are perfectly ok with having "an ancestor to the dinosaurs" coexisting with both dinosaurs and humans. (Oh, and Postosuchus is NOT considered an ancestor to dinosaurs).

A Peruvian burial cloth depicting dinosaurs that has been found in the same tombs as the Ica burial stones. The animals appear to be Ceratopsian dinosaurs, maybe Triceratops.

Some kind soul please tell this guy what Triceratops looked like.

Again, if I recall clearly the farmer who supossedly found the Ica stones was paid for every one he retrieved, meaning he found it quite lucrative; he too produced thousands of stones with all sorts of creative scenes depicted, BUT...

... obviously since he didn´t have any living dinosaurs he had to use existing illustrations as basis and it shows; by now the Ica dinosaurs are outdated. The sauropods are very chunky and they drag their tails, and for some odd reason, these ancient people seem to have coexisted only with the celebrities of the dinosaur world (Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus, Stegosaurus, Apatosaurus, Pteranodon). That is, the ones more likely to be found in any book on dinosaurs back in the 60s and 70s.

Note that the textured skin shown on the animal was not known by scientists until 1992.

Maybe not, but books from the 60s and 70s depicted it and many other dinos with scaly and bumpy skin anyways.

This stone depicts an image of a man riding a pterosaur for battle purposes. Note the clear skin texture that is clear on all dinosaurs on Ica stones, as well as the dagger in the warriors hand. It even seems to show membraneous skin on the wings and not feathers or hair, indicating these indians must have seen living specimens to have such anatomical knowledge.

Except pterosaurs did have hair...

This is my point exactly. What dinos you see there? An Apatosaurus with a chunky body and a tail on the ground; a tyrannosaur with an erect posture, a Triceratops without its epoccipitals and with a tail that curves down to the ground, a Stegosaurus also dragging its tail, and of course, Pteranodon.
All the celebrities together, just as they were depicted in books and stamps from the 70s.

This gold Moche' mask was discovered during an archeological excavation in northern Peru in 1923 and has 2 Dinosaur like animals on the sides of it.

Those are mammals; they have ears and differenciated teeth, and the shape of the head makes me think they're canids of some sort. The spikes on the back may represent erect hair (manes? are these maybe stylized maned wolves?) or simple ornament (notice how there's more "spikes" under the central human head and how there are swirl-like ornaments over the creature's noses).

This Mayan pottery piece is dated to just 67 years after the crucifixtion of Christ. It depicts a Theropod Dinosaur and even shows a clearly reptilian tongue. It appears to be a Raptor type dinosaur.

Really? It looks like a classic Mesoamerican jaguar depiction to me. A raptor would have feathers if they had based it on a real one as they imply. And would look very different.
The shape of the feet, the ear, and the posture all scream jaguar or similar carnivoran to me.

You know, in order to make things more interesting they should start finding new evidence, this time based on the illustrations of the books of our days.

Rubecula

As I said, Make of it what you will. I personally think it is a load of tosh, but thought folks might be interested that this stuff is doing the rounds as it were.

Thank you for putting into decent words for me Adam.

Owryan

Adams post is a hell of a lot more concise and a far better rebuttal than anything I could come up with.

My initial thoughts were "are they real" and after a lil thought "fakes".

The images are whatever people want them to be and there is plenty of evidence to show that if you suggest what an image is, then many people will accept the suggestion over what their eyes show them. Obiviously people who believe dinosaurs co existed with man see these images as proof without any real evidence.

My 4 yo will tell you a t rex lives in my shed, dont make it so sadly.

Capt'n Midnight

Must dig up that picture of the south american "astronaut" with the space goggles

and the one of the grave they found with someone wearing eye blinds

Rubecula

And the Aztec Jet Fighters too