Where Are The Dinosaur Ghosts?

Where Are The Dinosaur Ghosts?

You may also like...

46 Responses

  1. Neil Boothman says:

    According to this BBC news
    According to this BBC news item, fossilised remains of a plesiosaur (a giant, long-necked sea reptile) were found on the shore of Loch Ness back in 2003.

    Now, if we were to assume that people who report Nessie sightings are in fact seeing a ghost of a plesiosaur, this would explain why Nessie is often seen but, never actually physically discovered.. Hey presto, dinosaur ghost reports a-plenty.

    • Ian Topham says:

      Neil Boothman wrote:
      Now,

      [quote=Neil Boothman]Now, if we were to assume that people who report Nessie sightings are in fact seeing a ghost of a plesiosaur, this would explain why Nessie is often seen but, never actually physically discovered.. Hey presto, dinosaur ghost reports a-plenty.[/quote]

      Now we shouldn’t go assuming Nessie is a Ghost. Anyway, where are the land dinosaur ghosts then?

  2. Mauro says:

    This brings us to the
    This brings us to the obvious question: what’s the supposed "lifespan" of a ghost? A century? A thousand years? If I remember correctly what’s supposed to be the oldest ghost in Europe is the so called "Bronze Age Knight" who usually made his appearance in an undisclosed South England locality. He has not been reported since the ’60s or even earlier. The oldest ghost in the Americas is an unnamed Conquistador on horseback who’s supposed to appear in a Southern State when the United States are about to enter a war. The Greeks used to believe that occasionally the battle of Marathon was reenacted by supernatural means: it was consider a death portent or, at very best, a particulary bad omen.
    As you can see all these cases go back many centuries but there are no reports (as far as I know) of ghostly Stone Age men or mammuths.
    I can offer no explanation for this.

  3. Ian Topham says:

    Maybe if there is a
    Maybe if there is a hallucinatory component to witnessing apparitions, we need to have some knowledge of the thing we are meant to be seeing.

    There are many Roman ghosts that are reported throughout the United Kingdom. It has been said that the Elizabethan’s only ever recorded ghosts wearing Elizabethan clothing though. They were 300-400 years closer to the Roman occupation, so if ghosts fade, why didn’t they see more than we do? When was the first recorded Roman ghost sighting?

    One theory is that the Elizabethans didn’t know much about archaeology and had no idea what a Roman soldier would be wearing, although they obviously knew about the Romans (well Shakespeare did anyway). In this day and age we are brought up knowing exactly what Romans, Knights, Medieval Courtiers, Cavaliers, Roundheads and Tudors etc wore and we have reports of people seeing them.

    It could be that we can’t see them because we cannot relate to them. Has the ghost of anything totally alien to the witness been seen? Just a thought.

  4. Urisk says:

    Bear in mind that the
    Bear in mind that the landmasses have moved considerably since the Mesozoic period. While plenty fossils have been found on land, this is not where the land originally was! Referring to how ghosts are often seen in strange places (ie. through a bed, sitting on a rocking chair, walking at levels that no longer exist etc) it is safe to assume that if there were any dinosaur ghostly activity, it wouldn’t occur where we’d expect it to! Mostly, it would occur in one of the oceans, in all probablility. This is not taking into account the ever-changing topography of any landmasses that have stayed above water for the past 250 million years (if not more! if you take into account the animals that predated the dinos).

    Another thing worth considering is that most animal ghosts tend to be pets, do they not? Domestication sparks familiarity in our minds. Ghosts are often said to be spirist that are resteless, caused by some trauma or other unnatural occurence that (normally) caused their death. In nature, animals will accept (whether they know it or not) its laws, but domestication seems to cause a break in the "programming" as it were, where animals exhibit behaviours not seen in the wild (dogs for instance- one simple example would be that I have 2 labradors, and both smile when they’re happy!).  A lot of the breeds we keep (dogs, cats, rabbits, birds etc) are not natural in any way, and have been conditioned to be that way because of selective breeding.

    Essentially what I’m trying to say is that due to our playing with genetics, we have created animals that I suppose can be dubbed "supernatural" in the loosest sense of the word, and thus are halfway to having real supernatural occurrences….

    If that makes sense. I suppose I’m trying to say that most animal sightings are not generally animals that you find in nature, so whether by our own familiarity with said animal (maybe that triggers sightings) or the fact that they are not a natural animal, honed by thousands/millions of years of natural selection and evolution, it is these animals that are more likely to become ghosts, as it were.

    A break in the programming of life??

    Otherwise, could be to do with that theory linking ghosts and strong emotions. I don’t recall hearing of ghost stories involving wild animals, and yet domestic animals have a fair few. I wonder if domesstication brings out and "encourages" the development of emotions? Personally I believe that all animals will feel some sort of emotions no matter how rudimentary- it makes sense when you consider that fear is the body’s way of telling the creature it is under threat. In the wild, given the harsh situations, animals are haridier than their domestic counterparts, and thus maybe the feeling of emotions is not as strong (and possibly varied). I suppose it maybe ammounts to domestic animals "going soft", although I’m sure I have heard of ghostly elephants. Given that elephants display great intelligence and emotional articulacy, could it be that this leads to the formation of ghosts? This can only be specualtive because obviously we do not know the workings of the dinosaurs- I would presume that they were more varied than at least mammals, then quite possibly some of them maybe could convey more than fear, anger, distress and the other more natural basic emotions.

  5. Ian Topham says:

    Thats an interesting point
    Thats an interesting point Urisk. I am not sure if I can name the ghost of a wild animal, assuming we don’t include Jeff the Mongoose. There are of course tales of legendary or ghostly black dogs, but there is nothing to say they are wild dogs. Shamanic traditions have wild animal spirits as guides but that is not really the same as a ghost or apparition.

  6. Agricola says:

    This relates to one of the
    This relates to one of the other threads we have running at the moment – http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/forums/mysterious-britain/hauntings/oldest-ghost.html

    If the oldest ghosts we’re aware of are Romans, and we don’t exactly have legions beseiging us, then would or should we expect to see anything over 2,000 years old, let alone anything hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years ago.

  7. Ian Topham says:

    I suppose the question then
    I suppose the question then is why we don’t see apparitions of really really old things (just being annoyingly vague there) and what does it tell us about about hauntings and ghosts, if anything? 

  8. Agricola says:

    To add to that, what about
    To add to that, what about ghosts of inanimate such as houses and cars, etc.? But at the same time, when people do see ghosts, they’re always clothed and often carrying inanimate objects, so how do we explain the inconsistencies?

  9. Mysteryshopper says:

    If most ghost sightings are
    If most ghost sightings are misperceptions, they are likely to be things that matter most to humans eg. other humans, domestic animals and so on.

  10. Columbine says:

    ย Another idea is to do with
     Another idea is to do with brains. Run with me a second.

    So, if a human ghost is something like a retained record of that living individual, some sort of echo mapping of electro-magnetic waves? in other words, brainwaves. And a reptilian brain, prehistoric or otherwise, is one of the most simple brain constructions, other than (obviously) insects etc. (it equates, roughly, to the knobbly bit of brainstem in humans that controls motions to eat, bonk, sleep, kill things and so on.) doesn’t it make sense that they simply don’t have enough actual presence to leave anything behind once they cop it?

    Are there ghost snakes?  

  11. Mysteryshopper says:

    How would you define a
    How would you define a ‘brain wave’ exactly?

  12. Ian Topham says:

    Interesting theory
    Interesting theory Columbine.  So what animals have been reported as ghosts.

    Mongoose – If we count Jeff on Isle of Man
    Horse – usually with rider or pulling a coach
    Dog

    There must be more. 

    I don’t think I’ll much help defining a brainwave ๐Ÿ™

  13. Columbine says:

    ย A ‘brain wave’ is what’s
     A ‘brain wave’ is what’s measured on an EEG scan. Basically, though, when neurons fire within the brain, they emit minute traces of electro-magnetism through the synapse (the gap between each neuron). As most of the brain is active all at once (In fact, when they do scans to isolate, say, the ‘kicking’ part of the brain is, they have to do one scan while your kicking, and one scan when you’re not, and then play ‘spot the difference’) there’s a surprising amount of radiation. Though, of course, not enough to be noticeable by most people.  

    Moreover, blood flowing within the brain is also magnetic due to the activity of the neurons (they suck up oxygen from the blood), and that’s what’s measured in an fMRI.

    So combined, there’s a lot of energy whizzing about the average brain, and the patterns of it at the smallest level (the paths between neuron and neuron) whilst mapping over similar areas on a general level (eg, emotional reactions are always based in the amygdala) are highly individualistic. Indeed, unique as a fingerprint, but much much harder to pinpoint. 

    For example, when thinking ‘dog’ a select set of neurons might fire to form the image of ‘dog’ in a person’s brain like this:

    1011010111 (with 1’s being active neurons, and 0 being inactive neurons)

    but for person x, these neurons might be neurons
    1011010111
    AGHJYUWR

    But for person y, the same chain might be performed by slightly different neurons:
    1011010111
    AGPLEUGIN

    which of course, leads to interesting things like personal differences, personalities, different reactions etc. 

    So if ghosts are the echoes of these patterns, somehow preserved it would stand to reason that they could therefore map the individual they came from, right down to their physical form (in much the same way people with missing limbs can still ‘feel’ them).

    Which leads me to another idea; the ghost horse with the rider or carriage. Couldn’t that be a case where it’s not the reflection of the animal itself, but the manifestation of the human spirit’s memory of the beast? it’s harder to puzzle out, but it doesn’t seem entirely illogical to me.  

  14. Mysteryshopper says:

    The fields produced by

    The fields produced by neirons firing are absolutely tiny. fMRI doesn’t measure these fields. Instead, it imposes a huge external field (1 or 2 Tesla) and uses the tiny differences in magnetic susceptibility between oxyhaemoglobin and deoxyhaemoglobin to see where oxygen from the blood is being used, so indicating indirectly where neuron activity is taking place.

    The ‘brain waves’ detected by EEG are thought to be organising pulses for coordinating neuron activity (like the clock pulse in an electronic circuit) which don’t tell you much about the what the brain is doing in detail.

    Do you have a link for the stuff about neuron firing for an individual concept being different between individuals, please?

    Your idea is interesting but I don’t see why such tiny magnetic fields could be preserved. I doubt the fields generated by individual neurons firing are even strong enough to get outside the skull. And how would these magnetic fields be preserved and on what medium?

  15. Columbine says:

    What can I say? I haven’t
    What can I say? I haven’t brushed up on it in several years and I wrote off the top of my head. Though if you’re so up to the grist, I’m baffled as to why you bothered asking in the first place. 

    I would love to provide you a source for the coding, but it’s muddled into a stack of two-year’s worth of notes approximately on the wrong side of the country so I can’t. If I find it when I get back to the other house, i’ll try and furnish you with the article details though you might find it a bit of a chore getting hold of the main text without a good library. Academic google might find it, but whether or not it would be free to access it i can’t say. 

    It was quite specific though; there’s apparently not only chains of coding for categories (related to memory recall, as it happens), but more detailed chains for members of each category as well. so, as well as ‘dog’, you’d have a similar chain with a few minor alterations which would make ‘Jack Russel’. I suppose the only thing I could add is that it makes logical sense for the chains to be slightly different, given that the pathways in our brains form with usage. We develop at different rates, we construct our images of the world in slightly different ways based on culture and personal experience, and they can affect a person significantly if they go astray. 

    Frankly, I don’t see how such things could be recorded, but other researcher’s have, actually it’s not -My- theory at all; i’ve seen a couple of documentaries where the researcher has launched off on this tangent, so I thought it worth mentioning. 

     On the other hand, if it’s not some sort of preserved energy (and I’m running on a purely science based concept here of the ‘soul’, personal beliefs aside) What is it? And if it IS energy from an individual, wouldn’t the brain (as in, the thing that dominates our memory, emotions, perceptions etc) be a more likely source than say, a foot? 

    And, to go back on topic,  where are the dinosaurs?  

  16. SJMcKenzie says:


    I guess we can’t ask dinosaurs whether they can see dinosaur ghosts…

  17. Mysteryshopper says:

    Sorry Columbine if I came
    Sorry Columbine if I came across as rude. I just didn’t want other readers to get the wrong idea about fMRI. My question about how you define brain waves was because I wondered if you were refering to something other than EEG stuff.

    I think what you say about different people encoding thoughts or memories with different neuron firing sequences is correct (I remember reading something about it somewhere but I can’t find it). I just wondered if you had a link as it is fascinating.

    However, this point raises a major problem for your theory. If we all encode thoughts differently then, even if they can somehow be recorded, how could I understand your recorded thoughts (or those of someoneone recorded years ago)? Your neuron sequence would be different to mine so it would make no sense to my brain.

    Also, this theory suffers another problem, in common with the ‘stone tape’ idea (that images are somehow recorded, rather than thoughts) – why would we only see figures rather than entire scenes? When we look (or when a camera records), we see a whole scene, not just a figure.

    You say we have a mental map of our bodies, which is true (read that somewhere too) but I don’t think it would recall clothes. And, again, it would be encoded differently for each individual so how could I read yours?

    I’m just playing Devil’s advocate here. I think it’s an interesting idea, worth exploring, but there are a few basic objections to overcome first.

    Where are the dinosaurs? Well, lake monsters are an obvious place to start though I’m not sure why they are restricted to lakes (unless it’s that ‘humps’ and ‘necks’ in the water can be simulated easily by bits of trees and otters).

    • Ian Topham says:

      I think this is a great
      I think this is a great theory Columbine and I wish I knew more about the subject to aid the discussion.  One point Mysteryshopper made got me thinking.

      [quote=Mysteryshopper]You say we have a mental map of our bodies, which is true (read that somewhere too) but I don’t think it would recall clothes. And, again, it would be encoded differently for each individual so how could I read yours?
      [/quote]

      What about people who have lost limbs.  They still may have phantom limb syndrome where they feel like they still have it in place.  Could this mean their ghost would be fully limbed?

      There could be another reason we don’t get dinosaur ghosts.  The land masses have changed and they may all be wandering around under the Pacific.

      • Mysteryshopper says:

        Ian Topham wrote:IThere
        [quote=Ian Topham]IThere could be another reason we don’t get dinosaur ghosts.  The land masses have changed and they may all be wandering around under the Pacific.[/quote]

        Plenty of dinosaur bones have been found in the UK. Your point relies on a ghost being tied forever to a fixed latitude and longitude rather than a bit of the Earth’s crust. There is an implicit assumption there about the nature of ghosts.

        So what theory of ghosts are you proposing? ๐Ÿ™‚

        Incidentally, if ghosts were tied yo a fixed point relative to the geomagnetic field, many would have wandered all over the place even in the last few centuries.

        • Ian Topham says:

          Mysteryshopper wrote:

          Ian
          [quote=Mysteryshopper][quote=Ian Topham]There could be another reason we don’t get dinosaur ghosts.  The land masses have changed and they may all be wandering around under the Pacific.[/quote]

          Plenty of dinosaur bones have been found in the UK. Your point relies on a ghost being tied forever to a fixed latitude and longitude rather than a bit of the Earth’s crust. There is an implicit assumption there about the nature of ghosts.

          So what theory of ghosts are you proposing? :)[/quote]

          Hehe, I knew I couldn’t get away with slipping that one in.  Your right there is an assumption in there about ghosts, but it isn’t a scientifically proven rule of thumb.  The theory that ghosts haunt a location is probably culturally based. 

          However, if you don’t like that idea, I doubt you’ll entertain the idea that all the dinosaurs have been re-incarnated and therefore none of their spirits are left to go around haunting :).

          I think I’ll crawl back under my rock now ๐Ÿ™‚ lol

  18. BaronIveagh says:

    I disagree with the idea
    I disagree with the idea that animal ghosts tend to be domesticated: ghostly stags, big cats, and even wolves have been reported.

    The thing that I notice is that almost all reported ghosts are of mammels.

    Now: why don’t we have ghostly mammoths and glyptodonts I have no idea.  I would conjecture that time, indeed, does erase all things.  Perhaps over time ghosts experiance something like radioactive decay, or even just slowly run out of energy.  One thing I have noticed is a tendency in hauntings to occur in locations that one might call emotionally charged.

    Perhaps the relitive rarity of animal ghosts is due to such only rising from a sort of ‘perfect storm’ of conditions, similar to fossilisation.  The problem with this is once again, we’re treading in unknown territory, since we can only broadly guess at what actually occurs to create a ghost.

    Summum Nec Metuam Diem Nec Optima

    • Mysteryshopper says:

      BaronIveagh wrote:
      I

      [quote=BaronIveagh]I disagree with the idea that animal ghosts tend to be domesticated: ghostly stags, big cats, and even wolves have been reported.[/quote]

      So, in your experience, what proportion of animal ghosts are domesticated?

      • BaronIveagh says:

        That depends on how far back
        That depends on how far back to want to go and if we’re about to get into the myth/legend type of accounts.

        I will conceed that most recent and credible reports are of domestic animal ghosts (with dogs and cats neck in neck for the lead), unless you subscribe to the theory that some of the things that cryptozoologists are chasing around are actually a type of ghost.

        Ironically, the only animal-type spirit I’ve had the privilage of observing personally was of a (great dane-sized) red fox, though an associate of mine I consider credible has related to me a story of an encounter he once had with a phantom horse.

        Summum Nec Metuam Diem Nec Optima

  19. Matt.H says:

    Bit of a digression, but we
    Bit of a digression, but we should remember that not all animal hauntings are ghosts in a typical "residue of the past" vein.

    Sightings of animals such as dogs and rabbits have long been associated with both forewarnings of terrible events (mine disasters etc) and also a form of marker or echo of those events. Up here in Kidsgrove, for example, there are a number of black dog sightings down the years associated variously with the forewarning of a disaster and a murder that was thought to have been committed along the canal. The suggestion is that these creatures never actually existed physically, so they’re not party to theories that hauntings are direct imprints of dead beings.

    • Mysteryshopper says:

      Matt.H wrote:
      The

      [quote=Matt.H]The suggestion is that these creatures never actually existed physically, so they’re not party to theories that hauntings are direct imprints of dead beings.
      [/quote]

      I’m going to make the ‘heretical’ suggestion that ghosts of humans are of people that never actually existed either. In no case I’ve been involved in has there ever been a credible identification with anyone. I’m talking here about real cases, not stories from books of collected ‘traditional’ ghosts and legends (though many people confuse the two).

      • Matt.H says:

        Mysteryshopper
        [quote=Mysteryshopper][quote=Matt.H]The suggestion is that these creatures never actually existed physically, so they’re not party to theories that hauntings are direct imprints of dead beings.
        [/quote]

        I’m going to make the ‘heretical’ suggestion that ghosts of humans are of people that never actually existed either. In no case I’ve been involved in has there ever been a credible identification with anyone. I’m talking here about real cases, not stories from books of collected ‘traditional’ ghosts and legends (though many people confuse the two).[/quote]

        I think the assumption that ghosts are largely (or in some people’s opinions exclusively) imprints/echoes of the dead is a big barrier to any true understanding of what’s going on in such experiences.

      • Ian Topham says:

        Mysteryshopper wrote:
        I’m

        [quote=Mysteryshopper]I’m going to make the ‘heretical’ suggestion that ghosts of humans are of people that never actually existed either. In no case I’ve been involved in has there ever been a credible identification with anyone. I’m talking here about real cases, not stories from books of collected ‘traditional’ ghosts and legends (though many people confuse the two).[/quote]

        I think this is an excellent point.  From actual investigations I have been involved in, I can’t think any ghost that can be accuratly identified as someone who has passed away.  There are of course many accounts of hauntings that name the ghost, which I think has been a fashionable approach for many years. 

        Perhaps trying to identify ghosts is a pactice that should be abandoned.

  20. Matt.H says:

    I tend to agree, although
    I tend to agree, although I’m aware of a handful of credible reports that seem to have a clear link between a historical character and a ghost sighting. For example, a case where someone saw the apparition of a prison guard in such detail (officer number etc) that they were able to pinpoint someone who worked at the location at that time.

    Hardly concrete evidence of the ghost:history link (and it’s admittedly second-hand information) but food for thought all the same.

  21. StrangeRichard says:

    Sticking my nose in here .
    Sticking my nose in here . Maybe we are just to genetically different from dinosaurs to see them? we share common ancesters but not directly. Maybe the way our brains are wired is too different to receive the sightings?

    When I was at college (studing animal husbandry) we got invited to a uni up in london (sorry can’t remeber which one but it was fairly close to the station (waterloo)) we went to a animal rights and care conference (not the most scientific place) but there was one study done by some "real" scientists (psychologists) that made a link between domesticated animals and psychic phenomena. The study revolved around that animals (dog and cats) "knew " when their owners were coming home even if the owners didn’t. This was "proved" by the dog or cat sitting in the window of the house or in a specific location awaiting the owner when they got in the door. Usually the animal would get up before the engine of the car was heard by some 2-3 minutes and assume the location.
    now this sounds off topic but maybe, familiarity forms the link? yes we don’t personnally know the animals in question but they know humans by the association of neurons that you guys discussed earlier.

    Maybe we should see ghosts more like replacement organs from a body. We can get a close enough match the intensity of the experience is greater as the wiring in the brain is closer or your double helix is closer to the subject. This would explain why ghosts have been witnessed speaking but not being heard.

    I must put my head in the noose hereand say that maybe the ghosts are erased by the action of the tectonic plates and the rocks that they walked upon have been melted down and returned to the soup that makes up the mantle, very much like a wax recording.

    Saying that eeg brainwaves are very smallis quiet true butthey do come through the skull as the collectors are placed on the skin not through the bone. Only if the surgeon wants a better look does he get out his power drill and poke holes in your skull.

    just a thought cheers Richard

    gonna hide in my bunker now with the arp helmet on!

    • Mysteryshopper says:

      StrangeRichard
      [quote=StrangeRichard]Saying that eeg brainwaves are very smallis quiet true butthey do come through the skull as the collectors are placed on the skin not through the bone. Only if the surgeon wants a better look does he get out his power drill and poke holes in your skull.[/quote]

      EEG waves are the sum of many underlying neuron firings in synchrony. What you can’t detect outside the skull is small numbers of neurons firing individually. EEG waves don’t give you details about how the brain is working, just overall states.

  22. PhenomInvestigator says:

    Where are ancestors?

    One might ask an alternative question as the original poster, namely Where are our very distant ancestors? I have never heard a story of anyone witnessing early man anywhere.
    I find this as interesting as no one ever reporting having seen a dinosaur.

    In this regard it is also interesting that PK tests on early artifacts dating back thousands and millions of years produce interesting and apparently correct results. However, of course one could say that this could be retrocognition or pre-cognition on the part of those participating in the tests as much as any real contact psychometric contact.

    So time does seem to play a role, at least in what we think of as conventional apparitional and haunting behaviors. The question seems to be where is the dividing line in time?

    • Ian Topham says:

      PhenomInvestigator
      [quote=PhenomInvestigator]One might ask an alternative question as the original poster, namely Where are our very distant ancestors? I have never heard a story of anyone witnessing early man anywhere.  I find this as interesting as no one ever reporting having seen a dinosaur.[/quote]

      I think your quite right PhenomInvestigator.  We have another forum topic called Oldest Ghost which has mentioned Romans and probably the oldest "supposed" apparition being that of a stone age horseman.  Whether the stone age one is right I am not 100% sure.

      So finding the oldest ghost may give an idea of when they may decay…….if this is how ghosts function.

    • Mysteryshopper says:

      PhenomInvestigator
      [quote=PhenomInvestigator]In this regard it is also interesting that PK tests on early artifacts dating back thousands and millions of years produce interesting and apparently correct results. However, of course one could say that this could be retrocognition or pre-cognition on the part of those participating in the tests as much as any real contact psychometric contact. [/quote]

      What are these PK tests on artifacts and what were the results, please?

  23. StrangeRichard says:

    could it be that before a
    could it be that before a certain time we were more "in tune" with the world around us and thus no ghosts?

  24. OldTimeRadio says:

    Re: Neil Boothman wrote: Now,
    [quote=Ian Topham][quote=Neil Boothman]Anyway, where are the land dinosaur ghosts then?[/quote]

         They’re called DRAGONS and reports of their appearance were fairly common in the Classical World, continuing down to at least the Early Mediaeval Period. ๐Ÿ™‚

  25. OldTimeRadio says:

    Re: Where Are The Dinosaur Ghosts?
     I’ve just been thinking – might ghosts have half-lives, and if so might the half-life of a dinosaur ghost be considerably less than 70 million years?

  26. hapkido1 says:

    Re: This brings us to the
    I’ve actually heard reports of precolumbian native ghosts showing up in places. As for Nessie being a ghost, I did a hear an interesting story. Remember that movie “The Men Who Stare at Goats?” Well, there was a psychic portrayed in that who claimed to have made contact with Nessie “It’s the ghost of a dinosaur,” he said. Supposedly, the movie is based (even if loosely) on fact.

    Don’t forget the African sightings of Mokelembebe. It appears to be a Brachiosaurous or some similar, large, land-based dino. There are tonnes of sightings, yet no bones or physical evidence. Dino ghost?

    Could Sasquatch sightings be visitations by early giganto apes, or “the missing link?” Native people in the Americas often say that the creatures are spiritual being, unable to be trapped in this temporal world.

  27. Ian Topham says:

    Re: This brings us to the
    Hi Hapkido1, welcome to Mysterious Britain.  I must admit I had never heard of Mokelembebe … obviously I am spending too much time concentrating on just Britain.  After having a look at it though I think I’ll be adding it to the websites Mysterious World section sometime soon:)

  28. hapkido1 says:

    Re: This brings us to the
    Thank you! I’m a huge fan of the cryptids and mysteries of the isles. Let me know if I can help with research. Also, I’ve only just gotten here, but where is the Big Grey Man? I’ve not seen him on the site.

    Cheers!
    H

  29. Ian Topham says:

    Re: Where Are The Dinosaur Ghosts?
    The Grey Man is in the Cairngorms.  Our article is here: 

    http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/scotland/aberdeenshire/hauntings/the-grey-man-of-ben-macdhui.html

  30. hapkido1 says:

    Re: Where Are The Dinosaur Ghosts?
    Thanks!

  31. BaronIveagh says:

    Re: This brings us to the
    [quote=Ian Topham]Hi Hapkido1, welcome to Mysterious Britain.  I must admit I had never heard of Mokelembebe … obviously I am spending too much time concentrating on just Britain.  [/quote] Summum Nec Metuam Diem Nec Optima

    I’m shocked, Ian!  You overlooked a cryptid that’s hot on the heels of Nessie and bigfoot as one of the most famous in the world?

    Years ago, I think it was in ’85 I remember hearing the Regusters recording.  As far as anyone has been able to determine (thus far) it’s not fake, and dosn’t match with any known wildliffe.  While not rock solid evidence, the african dinosaur has been subject to almost as many organized searches as the Loch Ness Monster, and searchers have included the Smithsonian and several universities. 

  32. Mark-J says:

    Re: Where Are The Dinosaur Ghosts?
    ghosts arnt real. Thats why there isnt any dino ones, or anyother to that matter. ๐Ÿ™‚

  33. Ian Topham says:

    Re: Where Are The Dinosaur Ghosts?
    Hi Mark-J, welcome to the site.  You’ve made a good point.  Ghost’s maybe hallucinations or misperceptions of some kind, but that doesn’t stop people experiencing them.  So, it could be that no one reports dinosaur ghosts because they have never met a dinosaur and would have no frame of reference to accidently hallucinate or imagine one.   Which still makes this a valid question.

  34. BaronIveagh says:

    Re: Where Are The Dinosaur Ghosts?
    Actually, I can say I’ve had a hallucination of a dinosuar, but never saw the ghost of one.  (you see weird things when they put you on heavy painkillers and anti-biotics sometimes…)

    Summum Nec Metuam Diem Nec Optima