>>15215738
You pseudo-experts. Over the last 20 years or so, the picture of "Dinosaurs" has changed multiple times, with changes being like night and day. And before that, even more so. These "scientists" at "established" institutions, which are money laundering machines more than anything else, with cultists and a cult following, are making shit up as they go along. Give me a break.
Everything released about dinosaurs has been more of an artistic impression than anything else, let alone hard science. And what about those soft tissue residues that have been found - or rather, discovered - in some bones over the last few years? Oh, don't worry, it's some iron particles or whatever that saved this tissue FOR OVER 65 MILLION YEARS, GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK. Laughable. Instead, it's the age-old problem with people that are high on their own supply: They have established a dogma that now can't be challenged anymore, partly because it would make everyone look like god damn idiots and partly because there is a lot of money involved in various research programs, books etc that go with the dogma.
I followed the scientific literature over many years, and "ironically", I've come closer to a conclusion of my own before I believe anything out of their art books anymore, namely, that "dinosaurs" were really the "dragons" indeed.
>Have stories about dragons that resemble "dinosaurs", or giant reptiles (oops, sorry, meanwhile they are no longer reptiles, silly me) with every single culture across the world.
>Not just in mythological tales, but also in matter-of factly accounts from Ancient Greece. Also, a creature playing a role in mythology does not exclude it from being real. See wild hogs, octopi, etc.
>The catholic church, for example, has one of their most important saints slay a dragon near a real town in Syria. Why in the world would they risk their credibility with such a story - the opposite of what they wanted to achieve - if everybody would just be like "Wtf are you talking about, dragons??" In fact, this points to the opposite: It is more conceivable that the story (or details of it) might not be true (propaganda), rather than the frigging dragon not being real, because otherwise the story would already fall flat on grounds of being ridiculous, or at the very least met with a healthy measure of doubt.
>Many other historical accounts speaking of dragons, street and place names in many European countries still bearing the word "dragon", "wurm" etc in their name today.
>Would you tie ANY figure of importance to a made up fantasy creature, thus eliciting doubt among people, or would you not rather tie them to a "terrible creature" that people actually knew was real?
>Find bones that would no problem fit nicely into those tales of dragons
>Oh no, silly boy, these are not dragon bones, they are bones from another species we will call "Dinosaurs" ("Terrible Lizards") that closely resemble the terrible lizards from the tales but are different terrible lizards.
Yeah, go fuck yourself. Maybe it is YOU who are making shit up and not the thousands of ancient writers. I believe the problem here isn't even dogma - I believe there are things in our history, just like in our present, that various groups who are leading society by the nose are not willing to tell the "cattle".
Much of what comes out of their mouths, about the soft tissue found for example, sounds like damage control to me. The most ridiculous explanation for the dragon concept I've heard yet was that "Well, it's just that when you combine all the most terrible creatures together, like snakes and lions etc, you will end up with a dragon. Duh." Fuck you.