After watching a documentary about a theory that they could exist I wonder if they really do exist
You're thoughts?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8FIDeOOL52Q
>theory
That wasn't even a theory, it was complete fiction.
Dragons don't exist, there would be undoubtable extremely obvious evidence of them.
>>2023207
Your lack of faith disturbs me
>>2023210
Faith in what? I'm all for certain cryptids existing, but there is absolutely no way an enormous flying fire breathing animal could exist and not be extremely well known.
This was done by the Discovery Channel, who hyped it with something like, "Bringing fantasy back to life," or some shit.
Mermaids are real though
>>2023204
Lol, don't expect to find any "meme dragons".
Still, be free to pick any known animal and interpret it as a "real dragon". Many fishes, aquatic mammals, reptiles and large birds have the right appearance. Most "fantastic" animals are based on accounts of actual, mundane animals.
Pic related. They look like the fantastic sea monsters we're used to seeing on old maps, yet they are here explicitly labeled as "balena"(baleen whale) and "orcha"(orca).
>>2023204
Mate that Discovery documentary was made explicitly to see how much people would swallow it like that, something about how you're not supposed to trust everything that's on tv just because it's on tv
Yeah they existed the nords still sing about them for some reason.
It's no coincidence
I assume much of dragon myth came from folk finding dinosaur fossils and going from there with the fantasy writing.
>>2023213
>he's never seen a dragon
Are you blind mate?
>>2023235
Yes, except they are fat ,don't sing and eat water salads instead of horny bucaneers.
I think when humanity was more in tune with the fantastic nature of existence we came up with all these impossibly diverse creatures. Unicorns dragons and griffins just being a small example of this.
>>2024718
>If dragons did exist they would not have 6 limbs. All tetrapods have 4 no matter what.
>>2023204
Oh dear yes... I remember this, I do kind of enjoy it as a piece of silly fiction, but all the fake science is so painfully bad, it really dose make you cringe in some places. The design of the dragons themselves are pretty awful too, no thought gone in them, completely failed at making something either believable or interesting. Just kind of a generic lizardy mess. I don't think dragons need "explaining", how they look, behave and function is pretty much down to the indevidual lore of the world they come from. The huge, fire breathing monster most people think about couldn't exist in our world. That said, there are a number of creatures that could fit some of the general criteria. Pterosaurs were huge, leathery winged creatures with sort of a mix of birdlike, batlike and reptillian features that could at stretch sort of fit the description of wyverns. Yi qi was a small, feathered tree climbing dinosaur that instead of having developed flight feathers, used flaps of skin that stretched from the hands to the sides of the body. The result looked like a little bat-winged dragon or wyvern. There are also certain gliding lizards that use spread ribs covered in skin to glide from tree to tree, so I guess depending on what you define as a dragon there are few beasties that fit the bill.
Don't quote me on this, but my theory is that people in antiquity were doing a lot of drugs,
both intentionally and unintentionally without any idea how they worked. But there was little
to no wide spread information for the public so there's that too, not equalivalent of cracked or buzzfeed
to say "5 animals from the bestiary that don't exist"
>>2024720
you sure showed him
>>2023204
I remember watching that documentary a few years ago.
>>2023315
Everybody knows that dragons are invisible.
>>2023204
It was certainly some dinosaurs fossils discovered by the natives.
>imagine being a peasant in china -2000BC and discovering this.
>omg Ping it's a fucking dragon.jpeg
>>2024720
Snakes have 6 limbs!???????
>>2029187
They don't have 4 either.