Thursday, August 10, 2006

"Dinosaure" and Drakons

The non-fossilized tissue contained in dinosaur bones are being tested using carbon-14, used to date living tissue up to 50,000 years old. Although carbon-14 dating does not work on fossilized bones, the blood and tissue found within the fossilized bones are puzzling scientists as the tissue is not supposed to survive for millions of years, the consensus being that it is impossible. And the dating of the non-fossilized tissue is contradicting the accepted fact that dinosaurs are millions of years old.
Most of the sources provided in the following section is from mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific sources.
Read more about Criticisms of Stratigraphy and C-14 Dating methods [link].
Of course, dinosaurs did not exist in history as numerous as what the fossil record shows.
The disasters before 1065 years BM are too numerous, and for individual dinosaurs to be found in remote places is conceivable, as humanity would have pushed these giant bird forms into extinction but for the sake of safety!

No culture or dynasty yet found has left artifacts describing a study of reconstruction of extinct dinosaurs, unless recovered mythology is the output of such a study.

Theropods are depicted in artifacts...

Pterosaurs, as well...

And Ornithischia (Ankylosaurus, Stegosauraus, Triceratops)...

And Sauropods... 

Were Dinosaure and megafauna only recently extinct, one would find remnants for an aeon after the mass extinction event. The reports of megafauna throughout the historic aeons is evidence that the mass extinction occurred before recorded history, as there are no reports of herds of drakons, of immense numbers... 


"Researchers Confirm Original Blood Vessels in 80 Million-Year-Old Fossil" (2015-12-01, []

* "Soft Tissue Time Paradox" (by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D.) []:
In 1997, Dr. Mary Schweitzer published a series of articles detailing her observations of potential biomolecules within the trabecular (spongy) bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex femur found in strata conventionally dated at approximately 68 million years (notes: 1,2). Indeed, many observations of soft tissue in fossils dated at millions of years have occurred since 1977.3 The dilemma these observations present for deep-time advocates was immediately recognized, and controversy sprang up straightaway. How can soft tissue such as collagen survive intact for 68 million years when it has been experimentally established that at 10°C (around 50°F) only 1% of the original collagen in a bone sample can survive for longer than 700,000 years? (notes: 4)
In fact, Dr. Mike Buckley, a Royal Society University Research Fellow and Lecturer at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom, stated, “Collagen decomposition would be much faster in the T. rex buried in the then-megathermal (>20°C) environment of the Hell Creek formation [collagen half-life ≈ 2,000 years]” in a Science journal technical comment (notes: 5). So, what we know experimentally raises serious questions about the age of the Schweitzer T. rex fossil. How should this conundrum be addressed?
Dr. Schweitzer and her colleagues chose to assume that “deep time” is a scientific fact and therefore have made several attempts since 1997 to prove that soft tissue could remain intact for 68 million years. But further publications in 2005, 2007, and 2013 only served to deepen the mystery of cellular and protein preservation over millions of years (notes: 6-8).
In the 2013 article, Dr. Schweitzer proposed a preservation process involving iron and hydroxyl radicals (notes: 8). To test this hypothesis, the team soaked ostrich blood vessels in a compound of concentrated hemoglobin called HB. As an experimental control, they soaked a separate sample of ostrich blood vessels in distilled water. Extensive degradation of the control sample of ostrich blood vessels in distilled water was observed after three days, while the samples with HB showed no discernable degradation after two years. They concluded that the presence of an iron compound such as HB would allow preservation of soft tissue over millions of years. Is this a scientifically valid deduction?

Two chemists, John DeMassa and Edward Boudreaux, documented the many problems with this particular experiment and refuted its conclusion (notes: 9). But the overriding fact is Dr. Schweitzer and her colleagues did not establish their hypothesis; 68 million years is vastly different from two years—their inference is absurd.
With the iron preservation hypothesis refuted, the mystery of proteins in fossils continues to deepen. Are the dinosaur bones millions of years old as secular dogma demands, or are they thousands of years old as clearly indicated by the biblical account of creation? A recent creation solves the dilemma.
1. Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 1997. Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 94 (12): 6291-6296.
2. Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 1997. Preservation of biomolecules in cancellous bone of Tyrannosaurus rex. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 17 (2): 349-359.
3. Thomas, B. 2013. A Review of Original Tissue Fossils and Their Age Implications. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship.
4. Buckley, M. and M. J. Collins. 2011. Collagen survival and its use for species identification in Holocene-lower Pleistocene bone fragments from British archaeological and paleontological sites. Antiqua. 1 (1): 1-7.
5. Buckley, M. et al. 2008. Comment on “Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry.” Science. 319 (5859): 33.
6. Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2005. Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science. 307 (5717): 1952-1955.
7. Schweitzer, M. H., J. L. Wittmeyer, and J. R. Horner. 2007. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 274 (1607): 183-197.
8. Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2014. A role for iron and oxygen chemistry in preserving soft tissues, cells and molecules from deep time. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 281 (1775): 20132741.
9. DeMassa, J. M. and E. Boudreaux. 2015. Dinosaur Peptide Preservation and Degradation. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 51 (4): 268-285.
* Dr. Cupps is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in nuclear physics from Indiana University-Bloomington.
Cite this article: Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. 2015. Soft Tissue Time Paradox. Acts & Facts. 44 (12).


* "Dinosaur Shocker Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the ancient beasts" (2006-05, []:
Neatly dressed in blue Capri pants and a sleeveless top, long hair flowing over her bare shoulders, Mary Schweitzer sits at a microscope in a dim lab, her face lit only by a glowing computer screen showing a network of thin, branching vessels. That’s right, blood vessels. From a dinosaur. “Ho-ho-ho, I am excite-e-e-e-d,” she chuckles. “I am, like, really excited.”
After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,” she says, looking at the image on the screen.
It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
It may be that Schweitzer’s unorthodox approach to paleontology can be traced to her roundabout career path. Growing up in Helena, Montana, she went through a phase when, like many kids, she was fascinated by dinosaurs. In fact, at age 5 she announced she was going to be a paleontologist. But first she got a college degree in communicative disorders, married, had three children and briefly taught remedial biology to high schoolers. In 1989, a dozen years after she graduated from college, she sat in on a class at Montana State University taught by paleontologist Jack Horner, of the Museum of the Rockies, now an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution. The lectures reignited her passion for dinosaurs. Soon after, she talked her way into a volunteer position in Horner’s lab and began to pursue a doctorate in paleontology.
She initially thought she would study how the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones differs depending on how much the animal weighs. But then came the incident with the red spots.
In 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”
Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”
What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.
Schweitzer tends to be self-deprecating, claiming to be hopeless at computers, lab work and talking to strangers. But colleagues admire her, saying she’s determined and hard-working and has mastered a number of complex laboratory techniques that are beyond the skills of most paleontologists. And asking unusual questions took a lot of nerve. “If you point her in a direction and say, don’t go that way, she’s the kind of person who’ll say, Why?—and she goes and tests it herself,” says Gregory Erickson, a paleobiologist at Florida State University. Schweitzer takes risks, says Karen Chin, a University of Colorado paleontologist. “It could be a big payoff or it could just be kind of a ho-hum research project.”
In 2000, Bob Harmon, a field crew chief from the Museum of the Rockies, was eating his lunch in a remote Montana canyon when he looked up and saw a bone sticking out of a rock wall. That bone turned out to be part of what may be the best preserved T. rex in the world. Over the next three summers, workers chipped away at the dinosaur, gradually removing it from the cliff face. They called it B. rex in Harmon’s honor and nicknamed it Bob. In 2001, they encased a section of the dinosaur and the surrounding dirt in plaster to protect it. The package weighed more than 2,000 pounds, which turned out to be just above their helicopter’s capacity, so they split it in half. One of B. rex’s leg bones was broken into two big pieces and several fragments—just what Schweitzer needed for her micro-scale explorations.
It turned out Bob had been misnamed. “It’s a girl and she’s pregnant,” Schweitzer recalls telling her lab technician when she looked at the fragments. On the hollow inside surface of the femur, Schweitzer had found scraps of bone that gave a surprising amount of information about the dinosaur that made them. Bones may seem as steady as stone, but they’re actually constantly in flux. Pregnant women use calcium from their bones to build the skeleton of a developing fetus. Before female birds start to lay eggs, they form a calcium-rich structure called medullary bone on the inside of their leg and other bones; they draw on it during the breeding season to make eggshells. Schweitzer had studied birds, so she knew about medullary bone, and that’s what she figured she was seeing in that T. rex specimen.
Most paleontologists now agree that birds are the dinosaurs’ closest living relatives. In fact, they say that birds are dinosaurs—colorful, incredibly diverse, cute little feathered dinosaurs. The theropod of the Jurassic forests lives on in the goldfinch visiting the backyard feeder, the toucans of the tropics and the ostriches loping across the African savanna.
To understand her dinosaur bone, Schweitzer turned to two of the most primitive living birds: ostriches and emus. In the summer of 2004, she asked several ostrich breeders for female bones. A farmer called, months later. “Y’all still need that lady ostrich?” The dead bird had been in the farmer’s backhoe bucket for several days in the North Carolina heat. Schweitzer and two colleagues collected a leg from the fragrant carcass and drove it back to Raleigh.
As far as anyone can tell, Schweitzer was right: Bob the dinosaur really did have a store of medullary bone when she died. A paper published in Science last June presents microscope pictures of medullary bone from ostrich and emu side by side with dinosaur bone, showing near-identical features.
In the course of testing a B. rex bone fragment further, Schweitzer asked her lab technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, to put it in weak acid, which slowly dissolves bone, including fossilized bone—but not soft tissues. One Friday night in January 2004, Wittmeyer was in the lab as usual. She took out a fossil chip that had been in the acid for three days and put it under the microscope to take a picture. “[The chip] was curved so much, I couldn’t get it in focus,” Wittmeyer recalls. She used forceps to flatten it. “My forceps kind of sunk into it, made a little indentation and it curled back up. I was like, stop it!” Finally, through her irritation, she realized what she had: a fragment of dinosaur soft tissue left behind when the mineral bone around it had dissolved. Suddenly Schweitzer and Wittmeyer were dealing with something no one else had ever seen. For a couple of weeks, Wittmeyer said, it was like Christmas every day.
In the lab, Wittmeyer now takes out a dish with six compartments, each holding a little brown dab of tissue in clear liquid, and puts it under the microscope lens. Inside each specimen is a fine network of almost-clear branching vessels—the tissue of a female Tyrannosaurus rex that strode through the forests 68 million years ago, preparing to lay eggs. Close up, the blood vessels from that T. rex and her ostrich cousins look remarkably alike. Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls “round microstructures” in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.
Of course, what everyone wants to know is whether DNA might be lurking in that tissue. Wittmeyer, from much experience with the press since the discovery, calls this “the awful question”—whether Schweitzer’s work is paving the road to a real-life version of science fiction’s Jurassic Park, where dinosaurs were regenerated from DNA preserved in amber. But DNA, which carries the genetic script for an animal, is a very fragile molecule. It’s also ridiculously hard to study because it is so easily contaminated with modern biological material, such as microbes or skin cells, while buried or after being dug up. Instead, Schweitzer has been testing her dinosaur tissue samples for proteins, which are a bit hardier and more readily distinguished from contaminants. Specifically, she’s been looking for collagen, elastin and hemoglobin. Collagen makes up much of the bone scaffolding, elastin is wrapped around blood vessels and hemoglobin carries oxygen inside red blood cells.
Because the chemical makeup of proteins changes through evolution, scientists can study protein sequences to learn more about how dinosaurs evolved. And because proteins do all the work in the body, studying them could someday help scientists understand dinosaur physiology—how their muscles and blood vessels worked, for example.
Proteins are much too tiny to pick out with a microscope. To look for them, Schweitzer uses antibodies, immune system molecules that recognize and bind to specific sections of proteins. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have been using antibodies to chicken collagen, cow elastin and ostrich hemoglobin to search for similar molecules in the dinosaur tissue. At an October 2005 paleontology conference, Schweitzer presented preliminary evidence that she has detected real dinosaur proteins in her specimens.
Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”
Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
By definition, there is a lot that scientists don’t know, because the whole point of science is to explore the unknown. By being clear that scientists haven’t explained everything, Schweitzer leaves room for other explanations. “I think that we’re always wise to leave certain doors open,” she says.
But schweitzer’s interest in the long-term preservation of molecules and cells does have an otherworldly dimension: she’s collaborating with NASA scientists on the search for evidence of possible past life on Mars, Saturn’s moon Titan, and other heavenly bodies. (Scientists announced this spring, for instance, that Saturn’s tiny moon Enceladus appears to have liquid water, a probable precondition for life.)
Astrobiology is one of the wackier branches of biology, dealing in life that might or might not exist and might or might not take any recognizable form. “For almost everybody who works on NASA stuff, they are just in hog heaven, working on astrobiology questions,” Schweitzer says. Her NASA research involves using antibodies to probe for signs of life in unexpected places. “For me, it’s the means to an end. I really want to know about my dinosaurs.”
To that purpose, Schweitzer, with Wittmeyer, spends hours in front of microscopes in dark rooms. To a fourth-generation Montanan, even the relatively laid-back Raleigh area is a big city. She reminisces wistfully about scouting for field sites on horseback in Montana. “Paleontology by microscope is not that fun,” she says. “I’d much rather be out tromping around.”
“My eyeballs are just absolutely fried,” Schweitzer says after hours of gazing through the microscope’s eyepieces at glowing vessels and blobs. You could call it the price she pays for not being typical.
Photo caption: A tiny blob of stretchy brown matter, soft tissue from inside the leg bone, suggests the specimen had not completely decomposed.

Red blood cells

In a separate discovery, they found that the bone included not only the standard cortical bone (CB) but also calcium-rich medullary bone (MB), which accumulates prior to laying eggs. This indicates that the animal was female.


* "Molecular analysis supports controversial claim for dinosaur cells; New evidence adds heat to the argument over prehistoric dinosaur tissue" (2012-10-22, [] [begin excerpt]: Twenty years ago, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made an astonishing discovery. Peering through a microscope at a slice of dinosaur bone, she spotted what looked for all the world like red blood cells. It seemed utterly impossible—organic remains were not supposed to survive the fossilization process—but test after test indicated that the spherical structures were indeed red blood cells from a 67-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex. In the years that followed, she and her colleagues discovered other apparent soft tissues, including what seem to be blood vessels and feather fibers. But controversy accompanied their claims. Skeptics argued that the alleged organic tissues were instead biofilm—slime formed by microbes that invaded the fossilized bone.
Schweitzer and her colleagues have continued to amass support for their interpretation. The latest evidence comes from a molecular analysis of what look to be bone cells, or osteocytes, from T. rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis. The researchers isolated the possible osteocytes and subjected them to several tests. When they exposed the cell-like structures to an antibody that targets a protein called PHEX found only in bird osteocytes* (birds are descended from dinosaurs), the structures reacted, as would be expected of dinosaur osteocytes. And when the team subjected the supposed dinosaur cells to other antibodies that target DNA, the antibodies bound to material in small, specific regions inside the apparent cell membrane.
Furthermore, using a technique called mass spectrometry, the investigators found amino acid sequences of proteins in extracts of the dinosaur bone that matched sequences from proteins called actin, tubulin and histone4 that are present in the cells of all animals. Although some microbes have proteins that are similar to actin and tubulin, the researchers note that soil-derived E. coli as well as sediments that surrounded the two dinosaur specimens failed to bind to the actin and tubulin antibodies that bound to the extract containing the apparent osteocytes.
[end excerpt]
* "Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules" scientific peer-reviewed paper from Mary Higby Schweitzer, Wenxia Zheng, Timothy P. Cleland, Marshall Bern (2012-08-24, []

* "Hard times for soft tissues: Dinosaur soft parts reinterpreted as bacterial biofilms" (2008, [], full scientific article (2008-06) [].
This is the strongest alternative explanation for the existance of soft-tissue found within dinosaur bones. The explanation has been debunked upon further testing of soft-tissue found within other fossilized bones, with blood cells discovers similar to birds.

* "Poorly preserved fossil features evidence of dino blood" (2015-06-09, UPI Newswire) [] [begin excerpt]: Researchers at Imperial College London believe they've identified red blood cells and collagen fibers in a poorly preserved dinosaur bone.
It's not the first time researchers have located dino blood, but if the latest discovery is confirmed, it may suggests preserved soft tissue is more abundant than previously thought.
"Although remnants of soft tissues have previously been discovered in rare, exceptionally preserved fossils," lead researcher Susannah Maidment explained in a press release, "what is particularly exciting about our study is that we have discovered structures reminiscent of blood cells and collagen fibres in scrappy, poorly preserved fossils." [end excerpt]

* C-14 dating researchers specializing in dinosaur soft-tissue [] []
* "Radiocarbon dating basic introduction" ( [], with dinosaur soft tissue


The following has links to scientific journals -
* "Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material" [] []

* This site contains a debunking of a scientific consensus that Dinosaur soft-tissue could survive for millions of years []

* "Pregnant T. rex Found, May Contain DNA" (2016-03-15, []

* "Scientists draw squid using its 150 million-year-old fossilised ink; Scientists unearthed a fossilised squid which was so well preserved that they were able to draw a picture of it using its own 150 million-year-old ink" (2009-08-19, []
* "Scientists extract ink from 150 million-year-old squid" (2009-08-19, []
* "Ink found in Jurassic-era squid" (2009-08-19, []
[begin excerpt]: Palaeontologists have drawn with ink extracted from a preserved fossilised squid uncovered during a dig in Trowbridge, Wiltshire.
The fossil, thought to be 150 million years old, was found when a rock was cracked open, revealing the one-inch-long black ink sac.
A picture of the creature and its Latin name was drawn using its ink.
Dr Phil Wilby of the British Geological Survey said it was an ancient creature similar to the modern-day squid.
"The structure is similar to ink from a modern squid so we can write with it," he said. [...]
The find was made at a site which was first excavated in Victorian times where thousands of Jurassic fossils with preserved soft tissues were found.
Dr Wilby, who led the excavation, said: "We think that these creatures were swimming around during the Jurassic period and were turned to stone soon after death. It's called the Medusa effect." [...]
Dr Wilby said: "They can be dissected as if they are living animals, you can see the muscle fibres and cells.
"It is difficult to imagine how you can have something as soft and sloppy as an ink sac fossilised in three dimension, still black, and inside a rock that is 150 million years old."
The specimen is now in the British Geological Survey collection in Nottingham.
Part of the ink sac has been sent to Yale University in America for more in-depth chemical analysis. [end excerpt]

* "Mystery mummified monster discovered in Siberia diamond pit; Remains of a strange creature have been found by Siberian miners in diamond-yielding sands" (2016-08-10, [] [begin excerpt]: A bizarre mummified creature has been discovered at the heart of a diamond mine in the Sakha Republic, in northern Siberia. This ancient "monster" could date back to between 252 and 66 million years ago as it was found in sand deposits of that age.
The Siberian Times reports that the miners who found the remains had been working at the Udachnaya pipe diamond deposit, an open-pit diamond mine located just outside the Arctic Circle. [end excerpt]

* " 'Dinosaur Mummy' Found; Has Intact Skin, Tissue" (2007-12-03, []

* "Found: Preserved dinosaur cells -- but sadly scientists still can't build 'Jurassic World' " (2015-06-10, []

* "Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained" (2013-11-26, []

* "Triceratops Horn Dated to 33,500 Years" (2015-01-10) []

* "Lawsuit: CSUN Scientist Fired After Soft Tissue Found On Dinosaur Fossil" (2014-07-24, [], [begin excerpt]: While at the Hell Creek Formation excavation site in Montana, researcher Mark Armitage discovered what he believed to be the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site, according to attorney Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute.
Upon examination of the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Dacus says Armitage was “fascinated” to find soft tissue on the sample – a discovery Bacus said stunned members of the school’s biology department and even some students “because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.”

* "Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus" scientific peer-reviewed paper from Mark Hollis Armitagea, Kevin Lee Anderson (2013-01, [], [begin abstract]: Soft fibrillar bone tissues were obtained from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA. Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix. This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and secondary branching. Both oblate and stellate types of osteocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like microstructures. SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18–20 μm in length. Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization or crystallization artifact and therefore were interpreted to be soft. This is the first report of sheets of soft tissues from Triceratops horn bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of dinosaur specimens known to contain non-fossilized material in bone matrix.
[end abstract]

A different sort of "soft tissue" described in paleontology is the preservation of soft tissue as a fossilized imprint, as described in the following articles.

* "Skin pigmentation provides evidence of convergent melanism in extinct marine reptiles" (2013-11-22, []

* "Preshistoric plumage patterns Ornithomimus dinosaur with preserved tail feathers and skin tightens linkages between dinosaurs and birds" (2015-10-28, University of Alberta) [] [begin excerpt]: An undergraduate University of Alberta paleontology student has discovered an Ornithomimus dinosaur with preserved tail feathers and soft tissue. The discovery is shedding light on the convergent evolution of these dinosaurs with ostriches and emus relating to thermoregulation and is also tightening the linkages between dinosaurs and modern birds.
"We now know what the plumage looked like on the tail, and that from the mid-femur down, it had bare skin," says Aaron van der Reest. This is the first report of such preserved skin forming a web from the femoral shaft to the abdomen, never before seen in non-avian dinosaurs. [end excerpt]

The following article mentions soft-tissue found preserved at a dinosaur bone site in China, although the preservation of soft-tissue does not specifically refer to blood or cardlidge, and instead may reference the impressions of skin left on the mineral matrix of the fossil, However, considering the facts present so far in this section, the presence of genuine soft-tissue may not be discounted.
* "China's 'Jurassic Park' yields more feathered dinosaurs, the earliest swimming mammal and strange salamanders" (2014-03-06, [], [begin excerpt]: Dr Corwin Sullivan, of the Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology in Beijing, said: ‘The Daohugou Biota gives us a look at a rarely glimpsed side of the Middle to Late Jurassic.
‘This is not a parade of galumphing giants but an assemblage of quirky little creatures like feathered dinosaurs, pterosaurs with “advanced” heads on “primitive” bodies and the Mesozoic equivalent of a flying squirrel.’
Almost more impressive than the diversity of the biota is the preservation of many of the vertebrate specimens, according to the study published in the Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology.
Fossils include complete or nearly-complete skeletons associated with preserved soft tissues such as feathers, fur, skin or even, in some of the salamanders, external gills.
One is the feathered dinosaur Epidexipteryx whose soft tissues have been revealed by the use of ultraviolet light scanners.
A fossil of the salamander Chunerpeton shows not only the preserved skeleton but also its skin and external gills.
[end excerpt]
Photos from the article:
A feathered dinosaur, Epidexipteryx, was found at the site. The inset shows feathers and soft tissues revealed by the use of ultraviolet light.

A fossil of the salamander Chunerpeton shows not only the preserved skeleton but also its skin and external gills (pictured)


from []:
China Loong
Japan Ryu
Philippines Bakunawa
Siberia Yilbega
French dragon,dragun,dargon
Turkey Ejderha
Greece Drakon
Portugal Coca
Romaina Balamr
Slavic Zmeg, Drak, Smok
Hungary Sarkany
Britain/England Wyvern, Dragon
Sardinia Scultone
Wales Y ddraig goch
Korea Yong, Imoggi
Vietnam Rong, Long
India Neak
Persia Azhdaha
Germany Lindworm
Tartar Zilant

* "Where Did Dragons Come From? In honor of the Year of the Dragon, we take a look at some potential inspirations for the dragon myth" (2012-01-23, [].

The meteors having something do to with the legends of dragons sounds plausible.
The last known major impact event to a populated place was at Kaali in Estonia. The impact was comparable with that of the Hiroshima bomb blast, so one could only imagine the impact it had on the people at the time (estimates of the time of impact vary a lot - from 700 to 5600 B.C.) and how they would try to describe and explain it. Many customs are known from the early times in the region that associated with fire snakes. In fact when the Christians crusaded the region in 11th century A.D., their chronicle mentions that "the local people worship dragons".
Dragons were already known creatures in the stories of the Christians in 11th century. It's possible that after the impact, the stories of the "things that look like flying fire snakes and causes fires and destruction" spread to Mediterranean and beyond and took the form of dragons, as we know them today, in the legends.

The author forgot a very interesting piece of the puzzle; the word dragon comes from Greek "drakon" which means snake. Greek dragons were usually imagined as snake-like, and even in later times, dragons were often identified with huge reptiles that lived in India and Ethiopia, fed on large mammals which they "crushed" to death with their coils, and had long lifespans. John of Damascus even said that "dragons... are serpents, born of other serpents. When just born and young, they are small; but when they grow up and mature, they become big and fat so that they exceed the other serpents in length and size. It is said they grow up more than thirty cubits [14 metres, 45 feet]; as for their thickness, they become as thick as a huge log.’
It all sounds a lot like early descriptions of huge python snakes to me, particularly because these dragons are said to be native to India and Africa. The motif of the giant snake battling an elephant (the dragon vs elephant was common in ancient bestiaries) was once so popular that the very word "anaconda" stems from a South Asian word, anailkora, meaning "elephant-slayer", and given originally to pythons.

"When just born and young, they are small; but when they grow up and mature, they become big and fat"
This is covered by L.A. Waddell in his Sumerian, The Makers of Civilization and other works whereby he defined this logic as coming from a lack of understanding of animal phylum. He found in ancient Egypt they did not distinguish between types of birds as all "birds" are just "Eagles" in various sizes or stages of their life-cycle. He goes on to quote Greek sources that tie worms to giant snakes the same way.

Something odd about interpretations of Greek myth is that everyone assumes what the Greeks say about the name is what the name meant and very little is done to source the name, or more appropriately, to etymologise the name FROM THE REGION believed to have inspired the myth or originated it.
Drakon may be said to mean a serpent but there is no connection to the claimed etymology "Dereksthai" which means "Gazing, gaping, staring" (All Dragons were said to have a terrible gaze) and "serpent."
Now you can say that when a Dragon is labeled a "Gorgon" which means "Terror, terrible" that said creature now commands a "Terrible Gaze" if you in fact translate the name as related to "Dereksthai."
There's a P.I.E. word that predates this "Dereksthai" "Dherghen" which means "Thorns, horns" and has cognates in many Celtic languages showing it to be closer to Drakon than Dereksthai. Also, "Dra" is a Sanskrit word and "Kon" or "Con" is Celtic together they mean "Knowing, Wisdom." Something ALL Dragons are said to be; wise and all-knowing! In addition to that little tidbit you can translate the word in Sumerian as well, "Gon, gun, Kun" meaning, more appropriately, "Twisted, conjoined" and with the "Dra" which is a present participle verbing turns the word "Drakon" into a "WRITHING, TWISTING, CONJOINED" thing, IE. "Serpent" or Ouroboros or the Caduceus!
Now ask yourself, how can a name chosen randomly by one culture happen to cross-translate so many different ways if in fact "Dragon" is a Greek concept?
Answer; It cannot, it would not not, it is implausible in the extreme.

* from ( page 1 [], page 2 []:
European history has many stories of men seeing and having encounters with enormous reptile creatures . The word dinosaur was created in 1841, see the link for information about the word dinosaur. Before 1841, giant reptiles were called "dragons" in the English language.
These large reptile creatures were usually ferocious and considered a menace to people. When you read most of the reasonable accounts recorded in historical papers, it is obvious that the writers were giving mostly accurate details of creatures that existed and have now become extinct or very rare.
The book, History of the Kings of Britain (c. 1136 A.D.) chronicles much historical information about the ancient region of Britain. It was written by Welsh cleric, Goeffrey of Monmouth, who lived from approximately 1100-1155 A.D. His work may be found as a PDF file HERE []. If you proceed to Page 48 in this PDF, you will find the following quote:
"Chapter 15. Morvidus, a most cruel tyrant, after the conquest of the king of Morini, is devoured by a monster.
For he commanded them to be brought to him one after another, that he might satisfy his cruelty in seeing them killed; and when he grew tired of this, he gave orders that they should be flayed alive and burned.
"In his time a certain king of the Morini arrived with a great force in Northumberland, and began to destroy the country. But Morvidus, with all the strength of the kingdom, marched out against him, and fought him. In this battle he alone did more than the greatest part of this army, and after the victory, suffered none of the enemy to escape alive.
During these and other monstrous acts of cruelty, and accident happened which put a period to his wickedness. There came from the coasts of the Irish sea, a most cruel monster, that was continually devouring the people upon the sea-coasts. As soon as he heard of it, he ventured to go and encounter it alone; when he had in vain spent all his darts upon it, the monster rushed upon him, and with open jaws swallowed him up like a small fish."
The account of the death of Morvidus is written apparently as a matter of fact. It is without many of the exaggerations and supernatural manifestations of fictitious dragon legends and stories. The work was scholarly and has been used as a valid historical reference. Here is a scholarly summary of "The History of the Kings of Britain" [] that explains all the details around Goeffrey of Monmouth and this writing. No doubt there are questions that remain regarding the veracity of all of the details of the entire work, but none-the-less this particular story seems plain and straightforward.
Looking back into the historical records of Britain and Wales, we find many accounts of men seeing and having encounters with dragons (dinosaurs). Many, but not all of these stories were embellished as they were retold or rewritten through the generations. In spite of this, there are a number of historical accounts that are so plain and "as a matter of fact" that they cannot be disregarded as fiction or a figment of someone's imagination.
The following is a quote from the book "Folk-lore and Folk-stories of Wales" which was written 1909 by Welsh historian and author Marie Trevelyan.
In 1887, The Rev. Elias Owen published a work titled "Welsh Folk-Lore: A Collection of the Folk-Tales and Legends of North Wales. In it on page 349-350, he recorded the following: "Mr. Hancock in his "History of Llanrhaiadr-yn-Mochnant, "writes as follows:--
"The legend connected with this stone pillar is, that it was raised in order to prevent the devastation which a winged serpent or dragon (a Wiber) was committing in the surrounding country. The stone was drapped with scarlet cloth, to allure and excite the creature to a furor, scarlet being a colour most intolerably hateful and provoking to it. It was studded with iron spikes, that the reptile might wound or kill itself by beating itself against it. Its destruction, is alleged, was effected by this artifice. It is said to have had two lurking places in the neighborhood, which are still called Nant-y-Wiber, one at Penygarnedd, the other near Bwlch Sychtyn, in the parish of Llansilin, and this post was in the direct line of its flight. Similar legends referring to winged serpents exist in various parts of Wales. In the akjoining parish of Llanarmon-Dyffryn-Ceiriog there is a place called Sarffle (the serpent's hole)"
Another Dragon Report: A British 14th century scholar and monk by the name of John de Trokelow wrote a chronicle titled Annales. This chronicle was included in a work of historical writings compiled in the mid 19th century which is now called the "Rolls Series."
In Trokelow's chronicle is included this fascinating account:
"Close to the town of Bures, near Sudbury, there has lately appeared, the the great hurt of the countryside, a dragon, vast in body, with a crested head, teeth like a saw, and a tail extending to an enormous length. Having slaughtered the shepherd of a flock, it devoured many sheep."
Like so many other historical accounts, this one seems to be an "as a matter of fact" report of something that happened and was included in the historical record.....The account continues:
" order to destroy him, all the country people around were summoned. But when the dragon saw that he was again to be assailed with arrow, he fled into a marsh or mere and there hid himself among the long reeds, and was no more seen."
I have not yet been able to locate the source document online (Rolls Series) for the above account, but the story was recounted in a book that can be purchased online: (cit. Simpson, J. British Dragons.)
If you continue to examine the evidence you too will realize that so many reports from across so many cultures throughout the world can no longer be ignored.



* []: caption: Some old photographs of pterodactyls, flying creatures that, according to science, disappeared 150 million years ago. Here we see them portrayed as hunting trophies.


Other depictions of dragons to be placed in this page

* "Dragon Teeth Hunters and the Mindless Destruction of History" (2018-03-11, Ashley Cowie, []
Portrayal of Cadmus fighting the dragon. Painting from a krater in the Louvre Museum, Paris.

An alchemical dragon illustrated in a 1460 edition of the Medieval Liber Floridus.

Antichrist sitting on Leviathan Lambert of St. Omer, Liber Floridus Place of origin, date: Lille and Ninove; 1460

Jean Bourdichon, Saint Lifardus, c. 1503-1508

German aquamanile, c. 1200 CE, shaped like a dragon eating someone.

Constructive dialogue on the veracity of living specimens of Dragons engaging with humans 500 to 2500 years BM []
* "Dinosaurs: Dragons of old"

from Tudor Pattern Book Bodely MS Ashmole 1504

Detail of men battling with a dragon, Royal MS 19 B XV, f. 22v

12th Century Tile -- really not a tile, since it is a capital fragment from Early 12th Century Artist Unknown Steatite Trondheim Cathedral, Norway

Detail of a bas-de-page scene of two amphivenas, from the Queen Mary Psalter, England (London?), 1310 – 1320, Royal MS 2 B VII, f. 138v


Hypothetical reconstruction of a Spinosaurus alongside a person (2014,

* "THE IMPOSSIBLE DINOSAURS" (by Ted Holden) [], presented at the 1994 International Symposium on Velikovsky [] [].
Certain researchers point to the accepted practice of manufacturing "Dinosaur fossils" for museums, as described at the following article: "Dinosaurs Never Existed" (2016-11-25, [].

No comments:

Post a Comment