I extracted this fromDale Drinnon's blog and it covers the Lions of Delos which is ourstarting point.
My postings of the giantsloth conjecture informs us exactly just what this creature happensto be.
Unsurprisingly, the usualdepictions drawn from skeletons of a Giant Sloth are dead wrong. Asthe statues show us, the animal did not sport a huge belly but wasmore tiger like.
The Giant Sloth couldprocess plant material but did not when it could simply convert anykill into a maggot cache.
It is also noted that theAfrican Nandi Bear only eats the brain of a kill which also conformsto the vegetarian dentition. It may also use the maggot protocol.
Importantly, transAtlantic trade in exotica was already two millennia old when theLions of Delos was created so we are not limited to the Africansource.
LateSurvival Theorem, Regarding Chalicotherium
WEDNESDAY,5 DECEMBER 2012
http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.ca/2012/12/late-survival-theorem-regarding.html
Postedby Chris ParkerDec 04 2012
Gen 1:25 And Godmade the beasts of the earth after their kinds, and cattle aftertheir kinds, and every thing that creeps upon the earth after itskind:
and God sawthat it was good.”
Cana Leopard Change Its Paradigm?
Asa Christian my interests are not strictly limited to debates aboutthe meaning of scripture, issues concerning salvation or debatesconcerning the existence of God. Those are all important to be surebut throughout history science has been driven by human curiosityabout and discoveries concerning the world and the universe that Godhas made.
Oneof the interests I have is in something I like to callcrypto-zoo-archaeology. Clues to the true history of our planet canbe discovered by examining the art and artifacts of pastcivilizations. The truth is; studying and writing about what I andmany others have found in these artifacts is another way ofaddressing; the meaning of scripture, issues concerning salvation anddebates concerning the existence of God.
Inthis pursuit I have found that those who accept the literal creationaccount of Genesis have an incredible advantage in this arena. Onecan look at the artifacts of ancient history through at least twofilters; 1)that all living creatures are descended from a singleliving cell and have evolved through some process (essentially linearand sequential) into the higher order living species that we seetoday, or 2)the Genesis account of creation which would mean that allliving creatures including man have all lived together simultaneouslythrough all history in essentially their current forms.
Nomatter which filter one uses much of ancient history will still be apuzzle. But using the wrong filter certainly leads to a copiousnumber of; inconsistencies, anomalies, contradictions, unknowns,mysteries and a need to fill in missing information with speculationsand assertions which are not data or evidence.
Personally,I have tested the Genesis account and found that what I see and whatI expect to find in the historical and archaeological record betterfit that filter.
[Theintellectual problem is that the entire Global Bronze Age of 2500 BCthrough the 1159 BC collapse and the succeeding successor regimes hasbeen lost except through the eyes of the Bible and some snippets oflocal text and sculpture. Without that paradigm, the evidence isleft hanging out there - Arclein]
Onceone of the two above named paradigms are accepted however it is verydifficult to see or even to consider evidence that conflicts with theparadigm. This is true whether you believe in evolution or inCreation ex Nihilo by God. This relative inability to see or exceptor even to evaluate evidence that might appear to conflict with youradopted paradigm afflicts even those among who are quite certain thatwe are actually open-minded and objective.
Thisdoesn’t negate the fact that one of the referenced paradigms-isactually true-and that the selection of one or the other filter foryour own life doesn’t have consequences.
Whennews outlets announced that James Cameron and others had allegedlyfound “the Jesus Tomb” itdid not cause any consternation among Christians who paid zeroattention to the story. We waited for secular archaeologists torefute it-which they have. When news conferences, books andtelevision series were coordinated around the announcement of analleged human ancestor—which was going to change everythingexploded on the scene-“Ida”, I did not do a spit-take.
Bythe end of that year “Ida” was not even on lists for the top tenscience stories of that year. “she/it had been debunked. I havenever seen “evidence for evolution”. I’ve never seen atransitional fossil.
Iaccept that evolutionists have not seen evidence for the theory ofcreation either. However, shouldn’t just a single ancient artifactindicating that humans and dinosaurs lived together falsify thenotion that we missed each other by 65 million years? In the 1920’sthe World’ foremost archaeologist discovered human and dinosaurbones together in Mongolia and he found that they had fashionedjewelry by boring the shells and making ornaments of dinosaur eggs.(See our article: Dinosaurand Human Interactions in Our Times; the New York Times, LA Times,Chicago Sun Times ect)
DoI need to tell you that you need to use “fresh” un-fossilizeddinosaur eggs for this purpose? That archaeologist, Roy ChapmanAndrews went on to become the director of the American Museum ofNatural History-so how come so many evolutionists ask where there hasever been such evidence (of co-existence) ever in the world?
Let’stest my paradigm theory. Note the middle, right photographcompilation; the one with the three views of an archaeologicalobject. Once you read the museum’s description of the object, orperhaps prior thereto your filter goes into action.
“ColimaHorned Toad. Protoclassic, ca. 100 B.C. to A.D. 250. Height: 5.3 in.(13.5 cm.); Length: 10.5 in. (26.7 cm.). Price: $2,250
Ourarticle can be found at http://s8int.com/dinolit31.html
Thereare four rows of spiked protrusions in high relief along the lengthof the body, and one row across the head, thirty in all. Coffee beaneyes, recessed nostrils, open mouth, spout as tail, and short legscreate a reptile that seems pleased with his surroundings.Provenance: From a Riverside County, California.”
Now,if you are a creationist, willing to believe that dinosaurs and manco-existed, you may see that the photo comparison with an armoreddinosaur is very apt. If however, you are using the evolution filterit will be a toad. There is no way that it could be a dinosaurbecause you believe that they missed each other by 65 million years.
Thisis then, a toad, a fake or etc. In the same way, of course, I havetrouble accepting this as a toad because I see the dinosaurexplanation as a better fit-however, I do believe that the toadexplanation is a possibility.
Thesefilters exist and work to protect us from having to flip flop ourbeliefs and our view on the world every five or six minutes.
Justabove, left is another very interesting ancient artifact. Thisartifact is described by the curator as a “lion”. I picked thisone out because I want to get into the heart of this post and talkabout another group of famous lions. Mostpeople would be perfectly willing to see this depiction as a “lion”.
“EarlyIslamic glass lion (zoomorphic balsamarium). 7th-9th century AD”.Certainlyno one would object to “mythological”, or “unknown animal” oreven; “stylized lion figure”. One must make a decision and callit something. However, if you accept the evolutionary filter it ispossible that a whole group of potential candidates can’t even beconsidered. What if the true depiction here is of some type ofcrested dinosaur? In the photo we’ve compared it to Olorotitan,a European, crested hadrosaur (top,right of photo) and to Amargasaurus, a crested sauropod. Fossils ofthe specific species have been found in Argentina.
Mypoint is that creationists can consider the entire creation whenexamining an artifact but those using the other filter cannot—andmaintain their paradigm-al purity. They must describe every artifactin terms of the ruling evolutionary paradigm or face the penaltiesthat the scientific/academic/media culture will mete out. Can youimagine someone from Academia describing this as either a badlycomposed lion or possibly a sauropod like Amargasaurus?
Sonow let’s talk about some other depictions labeled “lions” bythe archaeological establishment.“Theisland of Delos, recognized as the birthplace of the god Apollo, hasbeen a sacred area used for various reasons throughout history. Todayit is one of the most important archaeological sites in Greece and iscovered in excavations, one of which is the famous Terraceof the Lions. This terrace was erected and dedicated to Apollo by thepeople of Naxos just before 600 BCE.
Theterrace consisted of a row of nine to twelve marble carved lions thatfaced eastward towards the Sacred Lake of Delos along the Sacred Wayfrom Skardana Bay to the temples. The lions, with their mouths openas if roaring or snarling, were both meant to guard the sanctuariesand to inspire a feeling of divine fear among the worshippers. Theway in which they were positioned is similar to the way sphinxes wereset up along avenues in ancient Egypt.
Today,only five of the original lions remain with remnants of three othersand the headless body of another has been transported and put overthe main gate of a Venetian arsenal.” Biers, William R. TheArchaeology of Greece. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996.Whitley, James. The Archaeology of Ancient Greece. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2001.
“Theisland of Delos near Mykonos, near the centre of the Cycladesarchipelago, is one of the most important mythological, historicaland archaeological sites in Greece. The excavations in the island areamong the most extensive in the Mediterranean; ongoing work takesplace under the direction of the French School at Athens and many ofthe artifacts found are on display at the Archaeological Museum ofDelos and the National Archaeological Museum of Athens.”
Question?Are these in fact, lions? If they are lions, they are surely“stylized lions” because their proportions are incorrect. Theirfront legs are too long. They have three fingers paws. Their bodiesare too long. This from a culture that provides us many examples ofmuseum level, realistic depictions of lions and other animals. Ifthese are lions built to “guard” the sanctuaries why aren’tthey more self-evidently and accurately sculpted; lions?
[Rather obviously they are not lions and it is unreasonable to getourselves of the hook by begging the question with the words stylizedor mythical. This was 2600 years before Salvador Dali influenced thearts. It is way more likely that this was a real critter - Arclein]
Couldthey depict some other animal? Are they mythological?
Priorto trying to answer that, we switch to a more recentcrypto-zoological mystery; the Nandi Bear of Kenya for reasons whichI hope to make clear.
TheNandi Bear and CChalicotherium
[ Recall that the Giant Sloth is American and it presence in Delosreflects long term Atlantean trade ties – Arclein ]
“TheNandi Bear, also known as Ngoloko, is a cryptid, or unconfirmedanimal, reported to live in Africa. It takes its name from the Nandipeople who live in western Kenya, near where the Nandi Bear isreported as living.
FrankW. Lane wrote, “What the Abominable Snowman is to Asia, or thegreat Sea Serpent is to the oceans, the Nandi Bear is to Africa. Itis one of the most notorious of those legendary beasts which have, sofar, eluded capture and the collector’s rifle.
…Descriptionsof the Nandi Bear are of a ferocious, powerfully built carnivore withhigh front shoulders (over four feet tall) and a sloping back;somewhat similar to a hyena. Some have speculated that Nandi Bearsare in fact a misidentified hyena or a surviving Ice Age giant hyena:Karl Shuker states that a surviving short-faced hyena Pachycrocutabrevirostris,extinct ca. 500,000 years before present, would “explainthese cases very satisfactorily.”
Otherthan the Atlas Bear (extinct by the 1800s), no bears are known to benative to Africa, besides those of the prehistoric generaAgriotherium and Indarctos, which died out 4.4 million years ago.Louis Leakey suggested that Nandi Bear descriptions matched thatof the extinct Chalicotherium, though chalicotheres were herbivores.
[Onthe other hand this article was supplied as a rebuttal to photographsof a recent bear's skull which supposedly came from East Africa,together with Roman reports of "Ethiopian Bears" such asthe one illustrated in the mosaic here.If real bears were in the area then they are easily the bestfulfillment of the reports and all other bets are off.-DD]
TheNandi people call it Kerit. Local legend holds that it only eatsthe brain of its victims. [This could be a Giant sloth introduced during the Bronze Age or theold world Chalicotherium may have come to the New world and emergedas the Giant Sloth or simply the same drivers are at work on avegetarian line – arclein ] Nandi Bears were regularlyreported in Kenya throughout the 19th century and early 20th century.Bernard Heuvelmans’s On the Track of Unknown Animals and KarlShuker’s In Search of Prehistoric Survivors provide the mostextensive chronicles of Nandi bear sightings in print.”
Asyndicated news article appearing Mansfield News of January 6, 1924reported that a very large fresh, fragment of unfossilized claw ofchalicotherium had been discovered at Bunyoro, Uganda ( CentralAfrica) and that the thought to be extinct chalicotherium might bevery much still alive.
Infact, Zoologists were making a connection between the stories theNandi peoples had been telling of afearsome, man killing, brain eating deadly night creature they called“Gereit” might exist and was in fact, chalicotherium. Thedrawing above, right is from that 1924 article and is a depiction ofchalicotherium.
“Chalicotherium,genus of extinct perissodactyls, the order including the horse andrhinoceros. Fossil remains of the genus are common in deposits ofAsia, Europe, and Africa from the Miocene Epoch (23 to 5.3 millionyears ago). The genus persisted into the following Pliocene Epoch,and remains of a related genus, Moropus, are found in North America.
Chalicotheriumand its relatives, collectively known as the chalicotheres, ( we’renot locking down on the genus) were very unusual in appearance andstructure. In overall appearance the body and slim skull were horselike. The front limbs were longer than the hind limbs, and the backsloped downward. The teeth were distinctive in structure and unhorselike. Thefeet were quite distinctive.
Therewere no hooves; instead, each of the three toes on each footterminated in a strongly developed claw. It is probable that thedevelopment of claws was related to the feeding habits of the animal.Chalicotherium may have browsed on branches of trees, pulling themdown with the front claws; the claws may also have been employed todig up roots and tubers.”…Encyclopedia Britannica
TheCrux: is the Nandi Bear a Chalicotherium? And What of the Lions ofthe Terrace at Delos?
Photo:Left, drawing of the Nandi bear from eyewitness accounts [Morelikely eyewitness accounts of wild dogs] andRight, a frontal view of one of the Terrace of Lions, “lions”.
TheChalicotherium is supposed to have gone extinct from 5-7 millionyears ago. The chalicotherium has been forth as a possible ID for theNandi bear primarily because the chalicotherium is also known forhaving much longer front legs than back legs and to have claws assome eyewitness accounts of the Nandi bear have described it.
TheNandi bear is also a cryptid whose description fits no known, livinganimal so the late survival of some animal thought to have beenprehistoric are put forward as potential suspects. Hyenadon isanother animal thought to have been prehistoric that has also beenput forth as a potential suspect for the same reasons; high frontshoulders, long front legs and a sloping back.
Thechalicotherium ID is interesting in that this animal also has veryunusual feet and claws which set him apart.
Photo:Comparisonof admittedlycarefully selected chalicotheriumdepiction inserted into old photo of Naxian (Terrace of Lions) Lionat Delos. [Emphasis added-DD]
Icame across the Terrace of Lions of Delos quite by accident whileinvestigationg some other matter and was struck by how un-lion-likethe lions were. They are magnificent animals to be sure but not likeany lions I’ve ever seen. Could they be depictions of realcreatures-who were not lions?
I did a quick Google search forprehistoric animals with long front legs and immediately was taken toarticles about chalicotherium. Articles about chalicotherium alsoeventually led to articles concerning modern day speculation bycryptozoologists that chalicotherium was a potential match for theNandi bear, a cryptid that I was unaware of.
Thephoto at the top of this section shows a very common drawing of theNandi bear (of unknown source -OnMonster Wiki, Uncredited: RW Bemjamin suspected artist)along with a frontal photo of one of the lions of the Terrace ofLions. Thisis interesting because as far as I know no one has ever speculatedthat the “lions” of the Terrace of Lions has anything to do witheither the Nandi bear or with chalicotherium. So is this visualsimilarity (if your filters aren’t preventing you from seeing it ormine forcing me to) just a coincidence?
Chalicotheresare usually depicted as thick, slow and sloth-like and not as fast,relatively slim and dangerous as the lions of Delos seem to appear.
Weknow from articles about dinosaur depictions that scientists andartists are only guessing when they depict dinosaurs how a dinosaurlooks just from their fossils alone.
Wealso remember that last year a scientific journal reported thatscientists now believe that due to an error in a formula they havebeen using that they have overestimated the size of some dinosaurs byas much as 50% to 33%. The size of their bones are known it was theamount of meat the artists were throwing on the bone that is inquestion. This suggests that certain dinosaurs were depicted as muchbulkier animals than they actually were. Could this be true ofchalicotherium?
Whenartists or illustrators depict known animals the variety of thedepictions, the form, the poses can be infinite because the realcreature can appear in infinite poses and can be seen from infiniteangles.
This not the case with unknown creatures. Inevitably, oncea depiction of an animal is made (a guess) all other depictions takethe shape of the reference depiction (or first few) and there becomesa limited view of the shape of the creature and even the poses thatthe animal is shown in. This group think about the look of an unknowncreature appears to be inevitable. A radical departure from theconsensus view of the creature won’t even be recognized as adepiction of said creature.
Chalicotheriumhas three toes on each foot ending in claws. Still, the front andback feet are completely different from each other. Are there Nandibear descriptions of three-toed feet? (By the way lions have fivetoes in front and four on their back feet).
Hereis an antique, eyewitness account of an encounter with the Nandibear:
“…thewhole tent rocked; the pole to which Mbwambi was tied flew out andlet down the ridge-pole, enveloping me in flapping canvas. At thesame moment the most awful howl I have ever heard split the night.Thesheer demoniac horror of it froze me still…I heard my pi-dog yelpjust once. There was a crashing of branches in the bush, and thenthud, thud, thud, of some huge beast making off.But that howl! I have heard half a dozen lions roaring in astampede-chorus not twenty yards away; I have heard a maddenedcow-elephant trumpeting; I have heard a trapped leopard make thesilent night miles a rocking agony with screaming, snarling roars.But never have I heard, nor do I wish to hear again, such a howl asthat of the chimiset. A trail of red spots on the sand showed wheremy pi-dog had gone.Beside that trail were huge footprints, four times as big as a man’s,showing the imprint of threehuge clawed toes,with trefoil marks like a lion’s pad where the sole of the footpressed down.But no lion ever boasted such a paw as that of the monster which hadmade that terrifying spoor.” KarlShuker’s Blog
TheNandi bear has been described as having five or six toes in variousaccounts over the last century as well. I believe that Dale Drinnonwho has written extensively on the Nandi bear postulates that the sixtoed account is assumed to have been where the back feet stepped intoan existing three-toed front track.
Variousdescriptions noted that the animal liked to sit back on its haunches,described it as bear-like (hence the name) having large feet and asbeing brown in color.
Regardingthe lions of Delos again; it can be clearly seen from the lessdamaged statues inside the museum that the lions have three toes onthe front feet and very long rear feet, also with three long claws.This superficially at least matches the front feet and rear feet ofchalicotherium.
We’ve shown here additional photographscomparing the feet of chalicotherium with those on the Deloslions-both front and rear as well as a number of photographscomparing the physiology, including the long front legs and slopingback.
I’vegone back to look at the actual chalicotherium skeleton to see if adepiction of the living creature as long, slim bodied with a slopingback would also have been a realistic way to depict the creaturenotwithstanding all the thousands of versions of fat chalicos.
I’veconcluded that the skeleton does lend itself to the Delos, Terrace ofLions, chalicotherium which has closely matching front and back feet,the long front legs and the sloping back of the fossilchalicotherium. Even the long hair (mane) of the statues fails toaccurately depict the mane of a lion and does remind me of the longhair on certain sloths.
Itappears that there is reason to connect the chalicotherium; acreature that supposedly became extinct 5-7 million years ago to theNaxian Lions at Delos. There appears to be some evidence that thereis a connection between the Nandi bear of Kenya and Central Africaand the chalicotherium. The elongated bodies of the Naxian lionscould be a match for the elongated bodies, and unusual feet of thechalicotherium which could aide in an affirmative identification andprove that chalicotherium was a “late survivor” and could evenstill be alive.
Sigiriya(Lion’s rock) Sri Lnkan Mega Site
“In1831 Major Jonathan Forbes of the 78th Highlanders of the Britisharmy, while returning on horseback from a trip to Pollonnuruwa, cameacross the “bush covered summit of Sigiriya”. Sigiriya came tothe attention of antiquarians and, later, archaeologists.Archaeological work at Sigiriya began on a small scale in the 1890s.H.C.P. Bell was the first archaeologist to conduct extensive researchon Sigiriya. The Cultural Triangle Project, launched by theGovernment of Sri Lanka, focused its attention on Sigiriya in 1982.Archaeological work began on the entire city for the first time underthis project.
Therewas a sculpted lion’s head above the legs and paws flanking theentrance, but the head broke down many years ago”….Wikipedia
Sigiriyaconsists of an ancient castle built by King Kasiappan during the 5thcentury. The Sigiriya site has the remains of an upper palace sitedon the flat top of the rock, a mid-level terrace that includes theLion Gate and the mirror wall with its frescoes, the lower palacethat clings to the slopes below the rock, and the moats, walls, andgardens that extend for some hundreds of metres out from the base ofthe rock.
Thesite is both a palace and a fortress. Despite its age, the splendorof the palace still furnishes a stunning insight into the ingenuityand creativity of its builders. The upper palace on the top of therock includes cisterns cut into the rock that still retain water. Themoats and walls that surround the lower palace are still exquisitelybeautiful.
DuringKassapa’s reign in the 5th century AD, a massive, 60-foot lion waschiseled out of the rock. The steps which continued up to the royalpalace started at the lion’s feet, wrapped around his body andeventually entered his mouth. Today, all that remain are the paws,but they give a good idea of the statue’s scale. It’s hard toappreciate how impressive it must have been 1500 years ago. It wouldbe impressive now.
Hereis the mystery; the lion’s head has fallen down and that years ago.One of the most famous parts of the entire sight is the gigantic“lion’s Paws that begin the assent to the next level. But thepaws rendered in great detail, are of a creature with three claws oneach foot (afourth toe is also shown). Lionshave five total claws on each front foot although one claw is a“thumb” that usually does not show in a foot print.
Thefinal flight of stairs, hugging tightly to the stone wall, is not forthose who suffer from vertigo…
So,did someone take the time and input the engineering to construct amegalithic structure featuring a lion only to get the detailconcerning the number of paws wrong? I’m even more amazed that noone seems to be questioning whether or not these are meant to belion’s paws. People seem content just to accept the ID and to moveon to the other incredible features of the site.
Atleast cryptozoologists ought to be asking about the three-clawedlion–if not biologists.
Seriously, is it even reasonable tosuppose that the people who built this great monument intended it torepresent a three toed lion? What creature, perhaps lion-like indemeanor could be confused with a depiction of a lion- and have threesharp claws on its front feet?
Well,certain dinosaurs might fit the bill–and of course there is theNaxian lion come chalicotherium….
[Thereal problem in the proposition of candidates for living Chalicotheres is that the latest fossil ones in Africa are morelike the supposed reports from Asia and the latest fossil ones fromAsia are more like the supposed reports from Africa, as pointed outby Christine Janis . Chalicothere claws are also notlike the clawed lion feet shown but are pointed hooves,more like giant groundsloth claws.The Nandi Bear is NOT a good match! --Best Wishes, Dale D.]
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder