Dragons?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /x/ - Paranormal
You are currently reading a thread in /x/ - Paranormal
Science has proven that dragons are a scientific possibility, and many have even taken the position that dragons actually walked beside the dinosaurs before Humanity came onto the scene. And I have my own personal theory that there are probably some living on another planet countless lightyears away. What do you think about them, /x/? Also, post some shit that claims they're still kicking.
>>17873644
holy fuck please let this be true
OP, did you watch that Discovery Channel program about dragons?
You know that was a mockumentary, right? It wasn't real.
Not only dragons , evil entities may also exist in other dark planets , with infinite power
>>17873675
>Demons, spirits, magick is real
>Dragon not
>>17873675
No, I did not. My info comes from other sources round the internet which I have no reason to assume is false.
>>17873683
"Evil" heh
>>17873725
OI M8 THIS AIN't THE BOARD FOR THEM TITS
Yes, and they flew through space. See, ancient aliens proponents see shit like how so-and-so god or such-and-such being "flew away on a silver dragon" and think that means rockets or whatever. Y'know, like the breath of fire is the exhaust or something. But no.
Those stories are literally true. They's space dragons, and if you make friends they'll take you away to their planet to hang out and talk about philosophy and grow weird xeno berries and get high'n'shit. Aztecs were all about that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatl
I mean, how come the people in Central America and over in Asia were talking about the same "myth?" How did so called savages separated by thousands of miles share the same stories, and architecture methods, at the same time? They didn't exactly fly Alaska Airlines over, or dial each other up on their cell phones.
>>17873725
Thanks bud I just got a promotion
>>17873737
...I can't tell if you're serious or high off your knickers right now.
>>17873644
>Science has proven that dragons are a scientific possibility
post one credible link that says this
>>17873765
On phone right now. Google it yourself, you'll get thousands of links on the matter.
Summer is real.
>>17873775
yeah alright sure
lets face it dragons are real and that huge either they have a wingspan so huge they need 20 hearts and 10 tons of food a day or those wings are not ment to be used to fly so if the wings arn't ment for flying do you think that would use them like sheilds coverd in scales maybe?
>>17873788
forgot my if inbetween if and dragons.
>>17873788
Actual dragons didn't have wings, if I remember right.
>>17873795
so there just a normal dinosaur then what the fuck are we talking about dragons for.
>>17873799
They weren't normal. Chemicals in their body literally allowed them to breath smoke and fire.
>>17873803
uh huh and the chemical mixture?(from a long extinct creature so far back that all the chemicals would have been long gone by the time "science" even would even be doing shit like this.)
>>17873815
Not a falsification of the fact that it does make dragons scientifically possible. You seem to be saying I'm saying we know they exist.
>>17873852
honestly though if we can't prove them anything more than big lizards theres nothing all that dragon about them.
>>17873675
I saw that back in middle school I had issued the first part which I assume had the bit mentioning that it wasn't really.
I remember telling my friends in class and getting laughed at
>Animals produce methane
>methane is flammable
>Dragon just needs some kind of sparking mechanism
>breathe out methane, spark, fire
Yes, dragons were the ultimate lulz creature, lighting mouth farts on others.
>>17873644
>Science has proven
SureJanMeme.gif
>>17873737
But eastern dragons and western dragons bear little resemblance.
>>17873788
The armor wings sound badass, but there would have to exist an entire phylum of six-limbed reptiles to support both arms and wings, unless it was a wyvern of some sort. Note how animals have either wings or forelimbs, while retaining a generic legs and pelvis motif.
>>17873737
> ancent humans have traveled to other planets with the aid of godlike space serpents!
>>17874043
There are hundreds of issues with the idea of real dragons. Pterosaurs basically reached the upper limits of size in flying animals, and had hollow bones and air-sacs to help keep them in the air, not to mention awkward finger-hands. These things would make an actual dragon extremely fragile AND clumsy on land.
Large flying animals also have stubby tails (or no tails at all) in order to reduce drag, so that's out of the picture.
Fire-breathing is ridiculous and is a trait no living reptile or bird/dinosaur has ever possessed. There's also another issue, as every flying animal has some form of heat-protective covering (yes, all pterosaurs are included in this, they were fuzzy, not scaly). A reptilian flying creature simply could not maintain its body-heat the way dragons are shown to do (though in fantasy stories, as they'd have the fire thing going on, that could be an excuse).
You're right about the wyvern thing, though. I guess, by making dragons realistic, you'd have to make them into something that's not a dragon. The closest we'll get are pterosaurs. Dragons are just a cultural phenomenon, sadly.
>>17874074
What about a four-legged reptile with a frill neck thing that gave the appearance of wings? breathing fire could be like spitting venom or a mutation thereof.
>>17873737
I see somebody has watched the latest episode of Ancient Aliens.
>>17873683
tooooooooo spooppy 3 me :(
>>17873644
>Science has proven that dragons are a scientific possibility
u wot m8
>>17873719
Your supposed to have a reason to think its true. You know burden of proof and all that.
>>17874186
Well there's not much about them that isn't physically possible. And most modern Dragon designs are based on a kind of pseudo biological realism.
>>17873737
Maybe they talked to each other in person. And walked.
>>17874074
Not saying dragons are real, but I post this every time someone says four legs + wings are an impossibility. "True" flight or not, four legged lizards with wings exist.
>>17874085
Nah. The Western concept of a dragon is utterly false.
The real "dragons" were instead serpents. Their skeletons were incredibly light, but had wing-like fins, like an evolution of an eel, or knife fish. It's worth noting the electric eel is a fucking weird animal, that projects electricity from its skin. So, before ya'll "can't into fire, not science-ific," just think about that.
Shoots electricity. From it's skin...
>>17874085
If you trace it back I'm pretty sure dragons were originally a reference to nile crocodiles.
They've since been exaggerated and taken on distinct characteristics of their own.
>>17873644
Dragons were dinosaurs. And vice versa. And they lived from start to finish thousands (less than 7000!) to hundreds of years ago. There are still some here and there. Get woke, anon.
>>17873719
Cuz Internets is always true
>>17873799
Dinosaurs are a hoax
>>17873644
>Science has proven that dragons are a scientific possibility, and many have even taken the position that dragons actually walked beside the dinosaurs before Humanity came onto the scene
Are you fucking retarded? A mockumentary from Animal Planet is not science, you shit-for-brains.
>>17873644
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq9eEiM4nkc
>>17874033
Plenty of western dragons have similar bodies to eastern dragons though
>serpents
>worms
>>17873737
Aztecs weren't in central america.
>this thread
REEEEEEEEEE
>>17874819
>didn't read the fact that I've never even watched a fucking mockmentary
>>17874673
What species is that?
If that's a real lizard, then friendly reminder that reptiles and such used to be much larger due to the heat of the earth. Perhaps that little fella was larger at one time?
>>17874024
>>17875064
Actually, I did watch that Mermaid mockmentary. But that's the only mockmentary I've watched in my life
>>17875098
>I did watch that Mermaid mockmentary. But that's the only mockmentary I've watched in my life
Then you owe it to yourself to watch TROLL HUNTER. The funniest, best all around /x/ related found-footage film of all time.
>>17875071
file name
>>17873644
If you mean, you know, gigantic flying firebreathing lizards, then your science is wrong.
Simply put, there is no wing structure that could generate enough lift to get a dragon off ground, nor keep it in the air for long.
Nothing short of jet engines.
The firebreathing part? Nah. Just nah.
>>17873644
>Science has proven that dragons are a scientific possibility
k
source?
>>17875694
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/20-how-to-explain-your-dragon
This is the simplest one. You fags happy now?
>>17874074
>A reptilian flying creature simply could not maintain its body-heat the way dragons are shown to do
Dinosaurs weren't reptiles, they were sauroids quite similar to birds in many aspects like being endothermic.
>>17875936
>Dinosaurs weren't reptiles
wat
>>17873815
The bombardier beetle produces a very hot liquid/gas mixture, something like H2O2 and hydroquinone(?). Granted, it's obviously nowhere near the size of dragons, but goes to show that a little chemistry goes a long way.
>>17875948
Precisely what the link I posted says.
It literally has an inner combustion mechanism.
>>17875943
Take a biology course, retard.
>>17875957
Ouch
Surprised no one has posted SCP-682. The scary thing is there are billions of these things out there.
http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-682
>>17875975
scp is satire
>>17875982
...
...no shit
>>17875993
This is supposed to be a serious discussion.
>>17876002
It's far too late for that, friend. Starting with OP.
Welcome to /x/, btw.
I'm a 27 year old wizard who believes/knows dragon exist on Earth presently but have figured superior evasion methods. They will reveal themselves when the moment is ripe.
>And I have my own personal theory that there are probably some living on another planet countless lightyears away
Would like to hear more of this.
>>17874043
Go away Peter. We haven't forgiven you.
>>17877058
>>17876901
Well, it's not a huge theory, it's just what I consider common sense.
If dragons are scientifically possible, then it seems reasonable that they would exist on another planet, regardless of whether or not they ever existed on Earth.
>>17877118
Fair enough. If there's a chance of aliens there's a chance of alien dragons, basically?
>>17877763
>extraterrestrial strap-ons
SCP-862
>>17877770
fucking autocorrect
I meant extraterrestrial dragons. Fuck me.
>>17877773
Really went into that article hoping for strap ons. Was very disappointed. Thanks man.
>>17875975
I've always thought having it talk made it so much less spooky and so much more retarded.
>>17873644
>Science has proven
Why does this always precede utter horseshit?
Just science in general proved something at the big science conference? No field or particular study just science?
>>17873737
>implying that Aztecs and other NorteAmericanos didn't come from the Eurasian landmass.
>implying it isn't reasonable for these people to keep the good stories to tell kids and keep using the effective way to pile rocks.
>implying this hard.
I think the myth if dragons just comes from how the breath of large animals feels hot. Like have a horse breath on you and you will feel the heat of his breath. You would swear they have a fire brewing in their lungs.
Now multiply the size by 10+ and imagine what the breath of an animal would feel like. Fire no.. but it would be hot and I'd imagine those who felt it would imagine they are breathing fire inside.
>>17877786
Even spookier: what if it's actually female, viviparous, and gestating?
>>17877806
Hey now! You can't talk about ancient American societies being built by white-skins. No Clovis, Solutrean, Anasazi, giants, or any talk about blue-eyed mustached people until Columbus!
>>17877813
>>17877806
Fuck, meant to reply to >>17877794
>>17877807
I have no idea why you thought you should reply to me with that but are you autistic?
It's not a real thing, dude.
>>17874681
Is that an uncommonly large crocodile or are crocodiles just that fucking huge?
>>17877816
I have a habit of replying to posts that make me think of something, even though I'm not assraping them. I know SCP isn't real.
Stop oppressing me, please.
>>17877831
*addressing, not assraping
fukken autocorrect
i'm going to bed
sorry :,(
>>17877770
>extraterrestrial strap-ons
>>17877831
>assraping
Your autocorrect is a lot more interesting than mine.
If Dragons aren't real, how can bad-dragons be real? Checkmate
>>17878065
I'm a very tormented and isolated individual. Please leave me alone and don't mention me again. I made a couple mistakes; I didn't mean to. I just want to be in a quiet space. I don't like predator-prey games. I want silence, and I want it however I can.
>>17878104
Leave this place and never return.
Take a Moment to look at the bible. The literal translation is that a dragon, one of the most intelligent creatures in the garden of Eden, tricked eve. Think about the curse. What kind of curse is it for a snake to crawl on the dust of the earth? It's a damn good punishment for a flying creature. And Satan takes the form of a dragon in revelation. God would not use an animal made up by man. Scientists have also found PROOF of genetic degradation in snakes,
>>17873644
>Science has proven that dragons are a scientific possibility, and many have even taken the position that dragons actually walked beside the dinosaurs
>>17878286
>Le Bibley
The book of revelations is a political propaganda cartoon of Rome at the time it was written. Which should be immediately apparent to anyone who has a smidgen of historical knowledge.
Satan as the seven headed dragon is the Roman Military, more specifically the cavalry who bore a dragon standard.
>>17875957
>>17875936
Well, technically a crocodile, a dog and a hawk are all reptiles
>>17878312
Nah thats outdated m8. If anything the seven head represent the nations under satan's rule. Lots of army's had a dragon standard.
So you think they died out with the meteor ?
Ok, even though this is a summer thread, and I'm an old fag of the habbo raid and worlds days, I need to comment here..
First let me make it clear, I have never done drugs. When this story takes place, I was underage, about 11 yo. I was most definitely not drunk or any such thing. I had gotten about 9 hours of sleep the previous night. I was not tired at all. Also let it be known, that I live relatively close to a small aircraft airfield, 20 miles or so from a regional airport, and at the time the USAF had their supersonic test loop going almost directly over the house my family lived in. As such, I knew what planes looked like and roughly where they should be (and still do).
It was a weekend afternoon, and my family was driving somewhere at around 3. At that time, as I have always been tall, I had a habit of leaning my head back over the back seat and looking up at the sky while in the car.
While doing this that day, about a dozen miles from the house, we were stopped at a light on one of the major regional highways (3 lanes each way + turning lane where needed, deviding median where not, 45-50 mph speed limit)
As I did, I was staring up out the back window, when something caught my eye. It was green in color, looked about as big as a 727 would at altitude, but was visibly 2-3* or so as high (around that area, cruising altitude would be 20k-30k ft) at an apparent 6k feet or so (as such would be absolutely massive in size), was green, and had apparent movement where its wings were.
I immediately knew that it wasn't a plane, and the only thing I could think of to compare it to was one of my favorite mythological animals (which as smart as I was and am, knew up untill that point most likely weren't real). Seeing that changed how I think. I'm still a skeptic, but if I see proof, I acknowledge it, science be dammed.
>>17878858
Interesting story. Wish you were able to see more details, and were closer. Still, sp00ky. Wonder how such a thing could avoid the public eye.
>>17879073
Yea, would have loved to have been closer...
With all the old coal mines, and caves in the area, it would be fairly easy for such a creature to hide.
>>17878858
I just noticed it said 6k instead of 60k...
>>17873775
He gave you an opportunity to make this thread great and you shut him down. Lame.
Who else wish they could summon Shenron?
>>17875849
>provides a journalistic website with absolutely no actual scientific research
>this is proven by science
>>17873644
>Dragons?
Pic related's the only closest thing we got. Australia used to have a giant one.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalania
>>17873701
>every /x/ browser believes in the same things
Back to >>>reddit
This is one is in the kabbalah
>>17873719
>t. I am full of shit, don't ruin muh rp
>>17874928
'long and skinny' does not qualify as the same. Applying the word dragon to every culture is wrong anyways, as each dialect had different words for 'big scaly reptile that can possibly fly'. We call them all dragons because that's the closest English word we can use to encompass all of them.
>>17879135
>>17873644
>Science has proven that dragons are a scientific possibility
Whoah there son! Your knees must be sore from jumping to conclusions!
>>17879164
>not an argument
read the fucking article I posted, faggot
>>17873775
Summerfag pls go
>>17877773
http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-297
Here you go, anon.
>>17879197
Care to back up those words with a refutation of this journalistic article?
>>17879267
Burden of proof you shithead.
The article doesn't provide any actual proof that dragons exist. It's explaining how the traits could be scientifically plausible. It is -not- a declaration that le dragons totally existed.
>>17879289
Oh, lovely, turning my words around, yes? I specifically said I don't know if dragons ever existed, but that it was scientifically plausible. You people said it wasn't, and now are changing your story because I asked for you to prove it was invalid? Get out of here.
>>17873644
>many have even taken the position that dragons actually walked beside the dinosaurs before Humanity came onto the scene
That was once that I'd seen, in a fictional documentary on dragons.
Scientifically plausible, yes, but probably not real.
>>17878548
>Lots of army's had dragon standards
Yes but not many were also based in a city on seven hills, that was also the main power of the European, Middle Eastern and North African world at the time and also wasn't to keen on the out of hand Jewish cult that was Christianity.
>>17879293
You realize that talking about scientific possibilities without actually providing scientific research means nothing, right? Its like discussing about gene manipulation without actually studying or researching with experiments
The link you provided is a journalistic website btw, where scientific research is misinterpreted a lot.
>>17877825
Nile crocodiles are usually between 12-18 feet.
>>17874673
this.
>>17873644
right /x/tards let me school you on basic biology and why dragons both did and didn't exist
first of all a 4 legged dragon with wings is impossible you can't just randomly get two more limbs out of nowhere
fire breathing is possible but very unlikely due to the numerous adaptations needed and each stage needs to benefit the creature to be inherited in the long term.
then there is yi qi the closest thing to a dragon you will get befor some mad scientist makes one
>>17874673
thats a skin flap, not a wing
>>17880325
>first of all a 4 legged dragon with wings is impossible
Bitch, literally the post above you quotes my pic of a REAL DRAGON WITH FOUR LEGS AND WINGS.
They are tiny, they don't breathe fire, and they glide more than fly. But they exist.
dragons = ancient dinosaurs
>>17880336
Every time...
>noun
>1. any of a number of specialized paired appendages that enable some animals to fly, in particular.
It's not a limb, it IS a wing.
>>17880598
technically those arent wings.
>>17880617
They are the very definition of wings.
If you prefer Merriam-Webster:
Full Definition of wing
>1a : one of the movable feathered or membranous paired appendages by means of which a bird, bat, or insect is able to fly; also : such an appendage even though rudimentary if possessed by an animal belonging to a group characterized by the power of flight
>b : any of various anatomical structures (as of a flying fish or flying lemur) providing means of limited flight
>2 : an appendage or part resembling a wing in appearance, position, or function
They are membranous, paired appendages by which the Sumatran Flying Dragon can glide through the air. That fits EVERY biological definition of wing given.
>>17880624
Although most biologist would laugh in your face for this, I dont want to play the semantics game with you.
4 legged dragons are usually depicted with extra limbs for wings. Therefor that cute lizard dude doesnt fit the description and you are porpusfully obtuse by claiming it fits the characteristics.
And saying that it can fly is also a bit misleading
>>17880653
>4 legged dragons are usually depicted with extra limbs for wings.
You mean fictional tales of mythical creatures.
I have posted pictures of REAL dragons. I can understand your confusion.
>Dragons do exist
>Just like Dinosaurs
>Dinosaurs have thousands of fossil records
>Dragons have yet to have bones discovered
>No virtual evidence of their existence outside Chinese fiction
>>17880669
>You mean fictional tales of mythical creatures.
yes. this thread is about them, you know.
Just because something is fictional doesnt mean, there arent clear characteristics for it.
You posted a real "dragon" in order to prove that the idea of the 4 legged dragons isnt implausible
>>17874673
>>17880598
It has been pointed out, that this is bullshit and now you are backpedalling and trying to be condescending to safe face
There is absolut
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnLZbuhor4I
>>17880683
That is a Sumatran Flying Dragon. Latin name Draco-sumatranus, of the genus Draco, meaning dragon.
They are real dragons, not fictional ones.
>>17880689
>this thread is about them, you know.
No, the thread is about Dragons. Says so right in the title. Show me anything in the OP that says this thread is specifically about fictional dragons.
>he idea of the 4 legged dragons isnt implausible
It isn't. All real dragons have four legs. Some of them have wings as well.
>It has been pointed out
Every point has been refuted. They are dragons. They have wings. They cannot fly, but their wings can provide lift such that they can glide for longer distances than a chicken's flight - which is saying a lot, since they're only about 7 inches long including tail.
>>17873719
post source or it's bullshit. this should be required for making claims like this on this board
>>17873737
primitive civilizations confusing a rocket ship for a dragon is much more plausible than flying space dragons. that story about quetzalcoatl does raise a lot of questions though. maybe the mayans did actually see space ships way back in the day
>>17880724
>No, the thread is about Dragons...
Stop shifting the goalposts. You were explicitly referring to a post about 4 legged dragons being implausible.
You are just intelectual dishonest when you claim, you wasnt aware that these
OP
>>17874074
>>17880325
posts were about the fictional dragons of western mythology.
Your description of that lizard is right but completely irrelevant to the subject matter. They are even named after the fictional dragons, yes, but all that has nothing to do with the classic depiction of dragons being implausible.
> which is saying a lot, since they're only about 7 inches long including tail
Also, small nitpick here, but being small makes flying/gliding easier, so thats not saying a lot
>>17880785
I shifted nothing. That was directly in response to "this thread is about fictional dragons." I see you did not (can not) show where the OP specifically said the thread was about fictional dragons.
My posts in total are simply in response to the idea that "four-legged dragons with wings cannot exist." I have repeatedly shown this to be false.
>Your description of that lizard is right
>Your description of that lizard is right
>Your description of that lizard is right
I accept your butthurt apology.
> being small makes flying/gliding easier
Having less weight, yes. But a smaller wing makes flying and gliding harder. It is astounding that they can glide over 30x their body length.
Flight distance record of gliding animals:
dragon: 60m
fish: 50m
squirrel: 91m
snake: 24m
frog: 15m
gecko: no data found
lemur: 136m
To compare, the world record paper airplane glide distance is 68m. A paper airplane is about the size and weight of one of these dragons. They're one of the best out there. And this isn't even getting into angle of descent. Anything less than 45 deg. is considered gliding, but the dragon only lost 10m of elevation in a 60m flight. That's a 10 deg angle of descent.
>>17880897
So you chose intelectual dishonesty and purposfully missing the point. Alright
>>17874074
This guy clearly talked about mythological dragons and how they arent plausible. Everybody can read that post and see it.
Your response:
>>17874673
completely irrelevant. Doesnt refute his points at all
>>17880325
This guy clearly referred to mythological dragons too. Specifically points out
>first of all a 4 legged dragon with wings is impossible you can't just randomly get two more limbs out of nowhere
>get two more limbs out of nowhere
your response
>>17880598
completely irrelevant. Doesnt refute his points at all
When people say "dragon" they mean dragon. They usually dont mean a lizard that was named after it and you know that damn well.
>I accept your butthurt apology.
If you were able to read you would have seen, that conceding this point wasnt an apology.
The anatomy of this lizard doesnt make the anatomy of mythological dragons plausible. Therefor you have not shown anything to be false.
However, I completely share your amazement about the gliding abilities of those little dudes. Thats really great
>>17880897
Thats like saying "aliens" can exist, because there are illegal immigrants (that are also called "aliens") existing.
Or pic related: water on Mars confirmed
I prefer arid climate dragons, actually, they're livelier.
Like this guy. Who needs fire when you've got flair?
>>17880325
>you can't just randomly get two more limbs out of nowhere
I don't disagree, but want to point out that the jaw is believed to be a modified rib. So, I wonder if some ribs (and attendant muscles, sinew, etc) could be manipulated to become wings. I have no fucking idea how the animal would actually look, how it would be rigged up. Birds have massive pecs to power their wings, and pecs power the front appendages of all animals that have them.
>>17880624
>quotes the dictionary to define a biological construct
>not quoting scientific literature
Funnily, the most famous "dragon" isn't one. Komodos are monitor lizards.
>>17880768
I've ran across several things about possible spacefaring people stuff while researching historical and other matters. It's very difficult to find decent sources for anything about alliums or such. Lotsa obviously retarded stuff with no decent sources or backing. I think it's very possible humans were genetically engineered, perhaps by distant ancestors who left Earth and returned later. Given our progress in genetic engineering and astronautics, why not?
Sunwheels, like the swastika and kolovrat, are found throughout ancient civs. Pic related theorises that they can be used for unzipping DNA, in addition to proving they're the most efficient shape for light-powered nanomotors. It's real, official, accepted scientific research.
>>17881181
see
>>17881042
>>17881264
Yes, aliens do exist and we have proof. Just no extra-terrestrial ones. And yes, liquid water has been confirmed to flow on the planet Mars.
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-evidence-that-liquid-water-flows-on-today-s-mars
And yes - those are dragons. Do you also scream that Blackberries are fruits, that a printer is a profession, and that football isn't played with your hands?
>>17881281
>Yes, aliens do exist and we have proof. Just no extra-terrestrial ones
What you mean, anon? Or is this an illegal alien joke?
>>17881302
It's not a joke, and not all aliens are illegal.
>>17881312
So what aliens do you speak of? And how, why, whatever.
>>17881348
There is nothing in the definition of the word alien that refers to space.
Full Definition of alien
1a : belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing : strange
b : relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government : foreign
c : exotic
2 : differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility
When referring to a person as alien, it usually means def. 1b. But it is a subjective descriptor; anything can be alien depending on the viewer.
>>17881410
Not a faggot, nor a difficult person, and not a sophist, but you are welcome to try and find the fallacy. Pedant would be the better word, but the most accurate is logophile.
And this isn't difficulty or contrarianism, it's entertainment. Are you REALLY upset I'm adding life to a dead, stupid thread? Did you REALLY want to discuss the scientific possibility of giant, fire-breathing, flying space lizards?
>>17881434
>Did you REALLY want to discuss the scientific possibility of giant, fire-breathing, flying space lizards?
Overall no, i don't think dragons are real, nor do I hope against hope to satisfy my childhood bullshit; but it's interesting to ponder. Biology is neat, as is mechanics. I am interested in any non-schizo discussion that could include aliens or ancient or unknown organisms. Eh, I understand your ruse so whatevs. No harm. Cheers, m8.
>>17881458
>but it's interesting to ponder
>>17881238
>>17879209
>>17879135
>>17878858
>>17878286
Oh yes. I can see where the thread "pondered" over the interesting biology...
>>17881505
You seem upset. What's wrong, anon?
>>17881521
How do I seem upset?
>>17881532
I dunno, I'm a jew, my superior genetics automatically make me mysterious and deep. I know the secrets of the universe because of my spiritual DNA.
>>17881551
>I dunno
I can assure you your unsupported conjecture was wrong.
>>17881564
ANTI-SEMITE!!!
ANTI-SEMITE!!!
respect the 6 gorillion, goyim. our imaginary oppression immunizes us against all criticism
>>17881578
I respect people, not groups. And this is moot, I wasn't disrespecting or criticizing anyone.
You claimed I was upset. I asked how you came to that conclusion. You said you didn't know, thus your claim was unfounded. Seeing as you have nothing to support your claim, I simply spoke from first-hand experience to let you know the claim was incorrect. The same as if you said I was currently on fire.
>>17881595
Too bad this isn't Reddit and you can't peruse my profile for ammo against my social quirks.
>>17875691
what if traditional western dragons have an organ similar to a fish's swim bladder. This "flight bladder'' could also be linked with the dragon's fire breathing ability. Imagine it'd work like a hot air balloon. When the dragon wants to land/lower altitude it can let off some of the gas through a bit of fire breathing. The wings wouldn't so much be used for lift but for propulsion, kind of swimming through the sky while the 'flight bladder' keeps it aloft.
>>17881434
>getting blistered and endlessly shitposting is "bringing life to a dead, stupid thread"
>>17881662
>any response to me is due to an extreme emotional upset and etc etc reverse psychology and wanton projection
>>17881678
The air atmosphere is much like the sea. They're both fluids. It operates on the same principles of differing densities and aerodynamics, obviously air being much less dense.
>>17881678
I feel like the bladder would have to be ludicrously huge to accommodate other typical dragon traits.
>>17881681
Brought you here. Although really we should thank this anon >>17880224 for resurrecting the thread. I've simply hijacked it.
>>17881683
Where in that post do you get that implication? Or are you incorrectly using greentext here?
>>17881686
Like speech, intelligence, gold-hoarding, and other fantasy dragon stuff? Do you think there's a biological imperative to dragons always stealing princesses? Like ants ranching aphids?
>>17881690
I've been here, ridiculing OP since the thread started. Try not to be such an attention whore.
As for the bladder problems, no. The typical traits I was thinking of were overall weight, scale density, bone density, volume, etc. The pterosaur thing was pretty true, achieving flight at those sizes requires a large amount of evolutionary corner-cutting. Even then, the creature is fragile and awkward.
>>17881690
>he's such a newfag he doesn't know greentext rules
>>17881686
maybe, but maybe not. i'm treating this thread like a thought experiment so bear with me. this flight bladder organ would have to be part of a system. And for a dragon to be able to use it to control it's altitude it'd have to be able to regulate it instantly. And since organs don't function alone I'd imagine it'd be tied up with the respiratory system. Maybe it's a modified lung or extra lung that traps excess oxygen and heats it up and can expel it extremely quick and with enough force to give it's fire breath some distance.
But then this begs the question, what causes the fire breath in the first place? Is it a chemical reaction like the wyverns in Reign of Fire? Does it work like a flamethrower, igniting a fuel source being sprayed over a vast distance? Is their breath just regular old carbon dioxide that's super heated? Or is it just literal fucking magic?
>>17881715
So you've been sitting here for over two days? Riveting.
>>17881720
There aren't rules. There are social conventions. You even follow it in your own post, as you are greentexting the implied cause of my confusion being naivete at usage.
Which is wrong. I'm confused whether the anon was implying that MY post is a juvenile scream that anyone responding to me is getting flustered, or if he meant that of his OWN post in which case the greentext isn't appropriate.
>>17881725
Why does your thought experiment remove the majority of traits from the dragon, like intelligence, speech, gold-hoarding, and a generally evil nature?
>>17881737
It's pretty easy when you browse casually on mobile. I'm not retarded so reading and replying isn't some huge ordeal lol.
Are you really this new?
>>17881737
>Why does your thought experiment remove the majority of traits from the dragon, like intelligence, speech, gold-hoarding, and a generally evil nature?
because I haven't talked about it at all?
I'm focusing more on how an animal that resembles a traditional 4 legged 2 winged western dragon could fly and breathe fire. That other stuff will come later after we figure out if any of the above is even biologically possible. Then we can move onto behavioral traits like the ones you listed.
>>17881745
>an animal that resembles a traditional 4 legged 2 winged western dragon
I already showed you one of those. Do you need another picture? I thought the whole REEEEEEE was in regards to this thread being about FICTIONAL dragons.
>>17881753
I'm not banned. I haven't been on 4coons for years so I dunno what bullshit they've made up.
Cry moar, USI faggot.
No you fucking moron
>>17881747
Not that anon but . . .
>not keeping track of a thread you find interesting, especially on a slow board like /x/
>>17881750
>I already showed you one of those. Do you need another picture?
Are you talking about that lizard with the modified rib bones? Because that might fit the dictionary definition of a wing, but like others have said ITT they don't fit the biological one. And besides you yourself admitted that those 'wings' don't let the lizard fly.
>I thought the whole REEEEEEE was in regards to this thread being about FICTIONAL dragons.
what REEE? OP said he had scientific proof that they could possibly exist. Then he posted an link to a journalistic article and had no other scientific sources.
All I'm doing is playing around with the assumption that Euro style dragons can fly and breath fire, and trying to come up with explanations as to how they can fly despite physics telling us a creature that big with an anatomy like that can't fly. Hence my 'flight bladder' thought fart.
But I think the real question is are you ok anon? Why do you have such a vested interest in the behavioral traits of a fictional mythical creature? Did your mom cheat on your dad with a dragon?
>>17881747
You're trying really hard to make it sound like some autistic thing to do, when really it's so simple that a monkey could do it. Like another anon said, x is a slow board. I could not post for a week and still see the same threads.
You should really try lurking before posting. Your summerfagging is bright and shiny right now.
>>17881765
Find interesting, sure. But that's not what anon said.
>I've been here, ridiculing OP
Can you show me amazing trolljobs and ridicule worthy of tracking in this thread?
>what REEE?
Every post in response to me after >>17880598, but it got a bit more focused around >>17880689
and right at >>17881115 the REEEE showed up.
What you are talking about was two days ago.
>trying to come up with explanations as to how
The explanation is that they aren't real, and in stories things can do whatever you want. You should try to figure out how the fox could talk in Aesop's Fables. At least foxes are real.
>are you ok anon?
Oh yes. Enjoying a nice bottle and watching the new season of Marco Polo. And shitting up this thread. Quite entertaining.
>>17881776
Curious that you think I'm marveling because you consider the task might be challenging to some, rather than marveling at the desire to do such a thing.
I've seen the thread many times as well, but there was never a reason to do more than scroll on by until the (You) in >>17880224
showed up. But you said you were here since the beginning, and you were TRACKING the thread.
All to "ridicule OP."
>>17881219
Called dragons due to their unusually large size.
Isn't a dragon just a large lizard?
Who is to say that dinosaurs aren't dragons?
>>17881725
In case of an oxygen-containing "flight bladder", it would have to be enormous. Like a hot air balloon. If the gas was something lighter than air, like helium, it would still have to be awkwardly large, making the dragon a blob rather than.. Well, dragon-shaped.
>>17881786
Like I told you before, it's just a thought experiment. You know, fun with your imagination. No shit they're not real and I'm not trying to figure out how the fox talks because this thread isn't about talking foxes or Aesop's Fables. It's about OP saying dragon's could be real so I'm toying with that idea and trying to come up with believable ways a traditional looking dragon could fly and breath fire. Why are you so against fun?
>>17881797
Could there be any other gasses an animal could produce that are lighter than helium? Or is this just a dead end train of thought?
>>17881791
What I meant there is that in the Squamata order of Lizards there is the genus Draco, and the genus Agama (which are known commonly as dragon lizards). Komodos belong of neither of these genera - being in the genus Varanas. Thus it is not a "true dragon."
>>17881792
Dragons are actually quite small lizards most of the time. If you accept Iquanas, the marine variety probably are the largest. They would also be the only known aquatic dragon.
>>17881809
The thought experiment ended with the fake documentary. You aren't going to come up with anything better. And this IS fun for me. Why do you keep trying to ruin my fun?
They exist, they have in the bible. Science is shooting itself in the foot by actually proving something that has been proven decades ago in the bible.
>>17881809
Well, hydrogen gas is lighter than helium, but when combined with some oxygen it's extremely flammable. A spark and it could go boom, so no fire breathing.
See: Hindenburg.
Also, it would still require the dragon to be a balloon rather than dragon-shaped.
>>17881831
This is good. That there's a Western dragon that flies and breathes fire, got four legs and two wings. Let's hear some biology of seven heads.
>>17881838
would the flight bladder theory work with some of the more serpent like wyrms?
>>17881281
>missing the point again
>>17873644
>Science has proven that dragons are a scientific possibility
uh
no
>>17874675
Animals can't "fly" using a serpentine motion like a snake or an eel, even animals that swim using this motion are incredibly inefficient and rely on buoyancy to keep them in the water column. The closest comparison is a featherweight arboreal snake that can glide by flattening its body out, but you can't really scale that up, since mass doesn't increase proportionally with area, a larger version isn't physically possible. Also, fire =/= electricity. Electrogenesis isn't that mysterious, it's just the rapid transfer of Ions through specialised organs close to the skin that generates a charge, basically like a battery. And it doesn't "shoot" lightening. It emits it, it's also no accident that all animals that utilize bioelectrogensis are waterborne, because for it to give off a powerful enough charge at any feasible distance it requires the conductivity of water, even then it's only a few inches maximum.
We should totally take animal names literally. After all, if you arbitrarily name something it totally becomes real.
I wouldnt mind if KFC starts to sell Mountain Chickens. If they are named "chicken", they ARE chickens.
Pic related, it's the mighty Mountain Chicken
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptodactylus_fallax
>>17878312
I thought the seven heads were the seven hills of Rome. Also while I'm fucking nerdy as fuck and I fucking love dragons. I'm almost certain that they only exist as a metaphor, as a representation of some big ass crocodile, or another animal, or maybe fossils of some dinosaur.
>>17879267
Yeah. It's a speculative article with input from a paleontologist whose major work is a speculative popular book on dinosaur behavior. It makes no claims as to evidence for dragons, it just wildly, without any testing or experimentation, throws out "hey, here's so and so things... theoretically, they could evolve at some point together."
But anything really could evolve. It's just a question of plausibility. And dragons are not plausible. If you want to do some speculative zoology, sure, whatever. Dougal Dixon made an entire fucking career off of it. But don't come at us with this pseudo-scientific bullshit.
I know this is /x/ and it's all in good fun but c'mon, let's not be legitimately stupid.
>>17875936
>sauroid
You are so full of shit. That is not even an actual taxonomic term. Dinosaurs are archosaurs, a major group of REPTILES that includes crocodilians, pterosaurs, and a bunch of other animals called crurotarsans (that are now dead). So birds, which are descended from dinosaurs (and ARE dinosaurs) are technically reptiles as well. You don't grow out of your ancestry - that's just stupid. That's how we define groups of animals - not on the arbitrary and outdated Linnaean classification scheme.
>>17882481
Forgot pic.
>>17882481
>So birds, which are descended from dinosaurs (and ARE dinosaurs) are technically reptiles as well
Thats not how it works. By that logic you could say that human are technically fish
>>17882481
>You don't grow out of your ancestry - that's just stupid.
Said the prokaryote.
>>17873644
>science has proven dragons are possible
holy shit are you actually retarded? For a winged dragon to exist would completely and utterly defy either evolution or the laws of physics.
Have you ever noticed birds and pterosaurs are small and light? That's because huge lumbering beasts cannot fly you idiot.
>>17882638
Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I just want to bring up this big guy (who probably had a hard time flying).
Quetzalcoatlus is at least the closest thing to a wyvern we have.
>>17882878
Yes it is large, but it is gangly with feathers and hollow bones. A scaly, muscly dragon would never fly.
>>17881816
You sound like such a redditor lol.
>>17882481
>you don't grow out of your ancestry, that's just stupid
this is the dumbest post I've ever read. Believe it or not, you aren't still a prehistoric fish despite having the education of one.
>>17881786
You do realize that reeepost was sarcastic right?
Did you really sperg out because you thought someone said reeee seriously?
>>17882905
Of course. Didnt want to imply otherwise.
It is actually quite amazing that this tall fucker only weighed around 250kg (550lb)
>>17881750
The "reeee" post was mocking you, autist. It made a parody of your style of posting.
>>17882940
But it basically fits some descriptions/illustrations of dragons
>>17882638
What game is that?
>>17883038
Bloodborne, highly recommend, it's my 2nd favorite game of all time.
>>17882927>>17882500
>>17882601
>implying all tetrapods aren't sarcopteygiians
>implying we aren't synapsids
>implying we aren't apes
C'mon guys. Cladistics isn't that hard. You're using a Linnaean mindset when that isn't a very accurate view of how natural history works - it's really only useful in a modern context, and even then things get a bit murky.
Admittedly, the anon who brings up prokaryotes has a bit of a point - when you go so early into the history of life, cladistics doesn't become very useful at all, because you're dealing with what might amount to wholesale transformation, instead of gradational and branching evolutionary trees, but you other guys are dead wrong.
>>17883235
>implying we aren't apes
No thats not at all what was said.
You said birds are dinosaurs and birds because "You don't grow out of your ancestry". Thats wrong.
As I pointed out:
By that logic you could say that human are technically fish.
>>17883493
*dinosaurs and reptiles
oops
>>17883235
Your taxonomy is utterly useless and misleading if it doesnt make a difference between birds and reptiles. THIS isnt an accurate view of how hatural history works. It also doesnt help people who are working in the field and it reminds me more of an semantic argument.
You are not even representing Cladistics in a right way. It is not as stupid as you make it seem. You probably saw some pop-sci video and now think you know shit.
>>17883235
>when you go so early into the history of life, cladistics doesn't become very useful at all
yeah no shit. Every living thing on earth is somehow related. So where do you draw the line?
>pic related: technicall a human
>>17874681
Hmm... Nyal Crocodiles huh?
>>17882953
Holy shit, he went on a rant for like 30 posts and he didn't even get the joke. That's a good laugh.
>>17883561
>osiris
>a crocodile
excuse me what
>>17883235
>>17883254
>>17883493
>>17883547
>he didn't even respond
blown the fuck out
>>17875849
The first line in that says they haven't proven anything. Holy shit I understand the roleplaying here but you might just be retarded.
>>17884033
>literally can't even read
It said they aren't saying they EXISTED
are you blind? Do you have dyslexia? Read the thread like a person with some comprehension and see where I said I never said that they certainly existed
the great battle of the e-penis rages on
news at 11
>>17876862
Do you know about the great golden one?
https://youtu.be/pye0Vo2z-Jw
>>17874681
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_(crocodile)
>>17875089
Proof
/thread
>>17873644
saw a dragon thread, you guys might find interest in this pic
>>17873775
You have to be at least 18 to post on 4chan.
>>17873660
TIAMAT!
>>17873644
All I know is the moon battle that made the earth have water was something like Tiamat, which is a dragon in final fantasy 7, also meteor, pyramid symbolism and soldier/mk ultra makes this game of reference, they don't breath fire, it's plasma, like the sun. They live in Blackholes.
>>17888030
The star collapsing creates an egg that feeds off energy, like spinning a cocoon, dragon! That's why the blackhole sun is of occult nature, a dragon returns.
>>17874673
Those aren't wings
>>17880611
The lizard doesn't fly, it glides. it's the reptile equivalent of a "flying" squirrel.
How would they even breath fire though? How is that physically possible?
>>17877118
You know that this is an old otherkin meme, right?
>>17888102
All animals produce methane, a flammable gas. Dragons could use electrcity (organically occuring) to ignite it, like electric eels
>>17880680
This.
>>17873737
>>17874673
>>17880224
you people are so shockingly retarded I am genuinely in awe. A lizard with skin flaps that let it glide and a giant fire breathing monster with four legs AND two wing appendages are as similar as the skin between a humans toes and the fins of an actual fish. Dragons completely disobey the laws of physics and the fact that you dumb fucking nerds are trying so hard to pretend dragons are real but you don't even have an elementary grasp of biology or physics.
At what exact point did you decide reality was simply unbearable to the point where you began to actually pretend that retarded fantasy creatures exist?
>>17873737
>, how come the people in Central America and over in Asia were talking about the same "myth?"
Oh how, how could two separate groups of humans have possibly developed similar stories? If only there were something that could have contributed to this. It is, alas, a complete mystery...
There are both large serpents, big lizards, and crocodilians in Asia and the Americas, as well as fossils of dinosaurs.
>>17873644
dragons are actually alive on a distant planet countless light years away
it's called nirn
This thread is a gigantic clusterfuck of a trainwreck. The only reason I'm still saving it in a tab is for the occasional bits of artwork and to watch the ongoing battle between the fantasyfags and the scifags.
>>17873644
>Scalebound
Kek'd
>>17888537
>clusterfuck of a trainwreck.
Welcome to /x/ grab a seat.
>>17889350
Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.
>>17874824
>all those religious comments
>>17888280
i can feel ya
>>17888028
You know tiamat is in some of the oldest recorded legends right, being the goddess of primordial creation and salt water.
>>17889558
Congrats, you can google.
>>17889608
Correct I can, an ability most people on 4chan seem to lack.
I also have... memory.
