0:00

The new Apple Watch Series X is here. It

0:03

has the biggest display ever. It's

0:05

also the thinnest Apple Watch ever, making it

0:07

even more comfortable on your wrist. And it's

0:09

the fastest charging Apple Watch, getting you 8

0:11

hours of charge in just 15 minutes. Introducing

0:15

the all-new Apple Watch Series X,

0:18

now available for the first time in glossy

0:20

jet black aluminum. Compared

0:22

to previous generation, iPhone Xs are later

0:24

required. Charge time and actual results will

0:26

vary. Hello

0:30

and welcome back to another episode of Decoding the Unknown.

0:32

As always, I'm your host, Simon, one of my writers,

0:35

in this case, Elza. Thank you, Wills, for bringing me

0:37

a script. Did humans and dinosaurs

0:39

live together? No, thank you so

0:41

much for watching. No,

0:43

we got 24 pages to go, but

0:45

are we going to debunk the shit out of

0:47

this? Because no. No matter what the Bible says,

0:50

humans and dinosaurs did not live together. There

0:52

was a large amount of time in between.

1:00

If Jurassic Park has taught us anything, it's that

1:02

two books aren't enough for a six movie franchise

1:04

with a seventh on the way. Are they still

1:06

making Jurassic Park movies? I know they were

1:08

making some with Chris Pratt, right? Jurassic

1:10

World? I think I saw the first

1:12

one. And then I knew there

1:15

was a second one, which I didn't see. I didn't realize they

1:17

were still going with that. I... Oh,

1:19

I did see the second one. They made

1:21

like a mutant dinosaur, right? Or was that

1:23

the first one? I don't remember, but

1:26

either way it wasn't very good, and I didn't see any

1:28

of the others. And humans and dinosaurs

1:30

should not be sharing the same planet at the

1:32

same time. If modern humans have so much trouble

1:34

handling the big lizards, I doubt our

1:36

ancestors would have stood much of a chance. However,

1:38

there are many who believe our ancestors not only

1:40

managed to survive, they thrived. And

1:42

if you know where to look, the body

1:45

of evidence proving that dinosaurs and humans coexisted

1:47

is impressive. I don't really buy

1:49

Jurassic Park. I mean, I love

1:51

the movie. Fantastic movie. But think about it, right?

1:53

We could dominate the shh out

1:56

of dinosaurs. Like, that electric fence doesn't

1:58

go down. And if it does... many

2:30

who believe that our ancestors not only managed to

2:32

survive, they thrived, you know where to look, the

2:34

body of evidence proving that dinosaurs and

2:36

humans coexisted is impressive, oh please, it's

2:38

not. There's no way. Oh,

2:40

wait, I mean, yeah, I mean, technically aren't,

2:43

isn't like a crocodile, like a dinosaur or

2:45

something like that, so technically we did exist

2:47

with him, but that's not what anyone means.

2:49

Before we get started, pliosaurs and... Pterosaurs

2:51

aren't technically dinosaurs, they are airborne and

2:53

sea-loving cousins, but if we get too

2:55

pedantic about definitions we won't get past

2:57

the introductions over this script. Let's

3:00

just consider them part of the dinosaur clan. I

3:02

also found some facts a bit hard to pin

3:04

down, so my story might be slightly different from

3:06

the one you know. Um, without

3:08

other way, let's see if I can

3:10

convince anyone, including myself, that humans and

3:12

dinosaurs lived at the same time. The

3:16

Bible Said So According

3:20

to young earth creationists, and we'll be hearing about

3:22

them quite a bit as they're the most vocal

3:24

supporters of this theory, humans and dinosaurs totally walked

3:26

the earth together and all the proof you need

3:28

can be found in the Bible. Like

3:30

this is like... I

3:33

understand people with religion. Like I

3:35

get religion. Religion's nice,

3:37

it's comforting, I get why

3:39

people like it, but to

3:41

be like... Yeah, we literally

3:43

came from, uh, you know,

3:46

young earth creationism and women are literally

3:48

the rib of Adam or whatever nonsense

3:50

that is, that's just silly. Like believe

3:53

parts of the Bible, but this

3:55

has been disproven. You know this,

3:58

maybe God guided creation. Sure,

4:00

maybe infinitely more likely than the

4:02

Earth being 2,000 years old, or 6,000 years old

4:05

or whatever, but it's just silly, isn't

4:07

it? Just to make sure we

4:10

don't get sued, creationists and young Earth creationists

4:12

are two different groups within Christianity with different

4:14

opinions. Both agree that God was the creator

4:16

of all, but young Earth creationists are a

4:18

little more literal in their interpretation of the

4:20

Bible. What a psuis for having an opinion.

4:24

In the book of Genesis, we're told that

4:26

God created the Earth and everything on it

4:28

in seven days. Young Earth creationists believe that

4:30

means seven solar days, so seven 24-hour periods.

4:34

No wonder he needed a day for rest.

4:36

Dinosaurs, being land animals, were created on

4:38

the sixth day, with pliosaurs and pterosaurs

4:40

created on day five. Of course, this

4:42

means the Earth is only a few

4:44

thousand years old, not millions of years

4:46

old, so dinosaurs couldn't have died out

4:48

65 million years ago. The dinosaurs, Adam

4:50

and Eve, and all other creatures, great

4:53

and small, lived together peacefully in the

4:55

Garden of Eden because conveniently all created

4:57

creatures were herbivores. You see, there was

4:59

no death. Apparently, plant death doesn't count.

5:01

In Revelation, the Bible also says that

5:03

in heaven, the lion will lie with

5:05

the lamb, not eat the lamb, so

5:07

clearly lions were meant to eat yams, not

5:09

lambs. So sentence and a

5:12

half, isn't it? This changed when Adam

5:14

and Eve committed the first sin, and

5:16

God cursed all creation with death as

5:18

punishment. Bit of an overreaction, if you

5:20

ask me. Overnight the animals changed, some

5:22

becoming meat eaters with sharp claws and

5:24

teeth, so it seems that sin ruins

5:26

everything, even dinosaurs. I don't know, sounds

5:28

like it made the dinosaurs awesome. Like

5:31

if it's just a Tyrannosaurus Rex and

5:33

it's just a wandering rat like munched

5:35

on some grapes or whatever, it's pretty

5:37

boring. Give it some claws, give it some

5:39

sharp teeth, make it eat some cows or

5:41

whatever. Cursing his creation with

5:43

death apparently wasn't enough to really drive the point

5:45

home. Everyone was wiped out

5:48

by a great flood. Luckily, Noah, being a

5:50

good and dutiful servant, loaded two of every

5:52

kind of dinosaur onto the ark along with

5:54

all the other animals. Note, I said kind,

5:57

not species. Apparently there are over a thousand

5:59

species. species of dinosaur, but there are only

6:01

around 50 kinds of dinosaur. Is

6:03

that really like a… what's it

6:07

called? It's not biological, but like…

6:10

I can't remember the word, there's a word for this. Ethnographical?

6:13

S. Ethnogriffle? Something like that? There are only

6:15

only 50 kinds. A thousand species? No, I

6:17

don't understand the reasoning either. Noah was also

6:19

clever. Instead of taking adults past

6:22

their prime, he probably took juveniles or even

6:24

eggs. They take up less space, and they

6:26

all have animals in peak condition to replenish

6:28

the earth when it's all over. Hand-rearing

6:30

a bunch of baby dinosaurs would be a full-time

6:32

job, but it's not like Noah and his family

6:34

had anywhere else to be. It'd think that a

6:36

bunch of animals in close quarters would pose a

6:38

few problems, but Noah was a righteous man, and

6:41

in the presence of righteous men, even animals are

6:43

at peace with each other, so luckily for the

6:45

lambs the lions went back to eating yams. The

6:48

dinosaurs who didn't make it onto the ark drowned,

6:50

and were buried in mud before scavengers could get

6:52

to them, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why

6:54

we have fossils. Wait, is this actually what is

6:57

believed? The reason that the

6:59

dinosaurs aren't around today is because Noah didn't

7:01

have room for them on his ark? I

7:03

genuinely didn't know that, and it's absurd. After

7:05

the whole Babel debacle, humans spread across the

7:07

globe and inevitably ran into the descendants of

7:09

the dinosaurs that survived on the ark. However,

7:11

with a changing climate, loss of habitat and

7:13

food, and humans hunting them for delicious

7:15

dino steaks, dinosaurs eventually died out. We

7:17

know humans encountered dinosaurs after the flood,

7:20

because dinosaurs aren't described in the Bible.

7:23

Really? There are three creatures.

7:25

There could be dinosaurs. First, we have

7:27

the Tanyan, which translates as serpent, sea

7:29

monster, or most commonly, dragon. It

7:32

might have been some kind of large reptile living on land

7:34

and in water, but we don't know much more than that.

7:37

Next up, we have the Leviathan, a large

7:39

sea monster with scales and terrible teeth. It

7:41

breathes smoke and spits fire, and cannot

7:43

be killed by man. Only God can

7:45

slay this fearsome beast. To me, this

7:48

seems metaphorical, but I'm just a writer,

7:50

not a biblical scholar. Yeah, yeah, because

7:52

it's metaphorical. The star of the show

7:54

is the Behemoth. In a spectacle example

7:56

of selective reading, the Behemoth is proudly

7:58

presented as a detailed description of a

8:01

dinosaur in the Old Testament book of Job.

8:03

It eats grass, like an ox, has strong

8:05

hips and powerful muscles, bones like beams of

8:07

bronze, ribs like bars of iron, and a

8:09

tail that moves like a cedar. Based

8:12

on this description, it must be a dinosaur,

8:14

most likely a patosaurus, a long-necked dinosaur that

8:16

could grow up to 23 meters or 75

8:19

feet tall. I mean,

8:21

no, because… no,

8:23

it's not. Though, the Apatosaurus certainly

8:25

had a tail like a cedar tree, however

8:27

the Bible doesn't say anything about the tail

8:29

looking like a cedar tree, only that it

8:31

moved like a cedar tree, but this is

8:33

of course unimportant. If you read the rest

8:35

of the passage, it also says the Behemoths

8:37

can lie in the shade of a lotus

8:39

tree and take cover in the reeds, which

8:41

an Apatosaurus most certainly couldn't do. Didn't

8:44

they say it was massive? How big

8:46

are these reeds? Behemoths also had a

8:48

very large mouth, while the Apatosaurus had

8:50

a fairly small mouth, but sure, the

8:52

Bible is describing an Apatosaurus, not a

8:55

hippo, of course. In fairness now, most

8:57

Christians view the Bible as a piece

8:59

of literature concerned with the creation of

9:01

man and his relationship with God, not

9:03

a field manual listing every animal and

9:05

insect species that ever crawled the earth,

9:07

yes, which is why it's so weird

9:10

for people to take a literal interpretation

9:12

of the Bible. Because

9:15

it's… it's not… I can't

9:17

believe it was written to be interpreted

9:19

literally. Because it's stories.

9:22

It's stories with like good lessons and

9:24

meanings and stuff, no? And

9:26

sometimes weird lessons and meanings, and sometimes

9:28

ones that are just flat out insane.

9:30

Christian Bible also isn't the only religious

9:33

scripture mentioning dragons. Hindu scriptures are filled

9:35

with stories about dragons that some people

9:37

interpret as dinosaurs. However, I'd prefer not

9:39

to get karmically bitch-slapped by an eight-armed

9:41

goddess, so let's move on to something

9:44

else. Dinosaurs

9:47

in Ancient Art Now,

9:50

I hear you ask, if dinosaurs didn't live

9:52

with humans, why do they keep showing up

9:54

in ancient art? Surely the only way those

9:56

ancient artists could have depicted dinosaurs is if

9:58

they actually saw dinosaurs for themselves. It's

10:00

not like they had Google images to work from, and

10:02

we're not talking about an odd painting here and a

10:04

statue there. The body of art that supposedly proves that

10:06

humans and dinosaurs have lived together could fill a large

10:09

museum. Much as I'd love to, I

10:11

can't cover all of them, so we'll just look at

10:13

a few examples and see if truth can be found

10:15

in art. I mean, but thus, dinosaurs died out 65

10:17

million years ago. But a crocodile

10:19

kinda looks like a bit dinosaur-y, a lizard looks

10:21

a bit dinosaur-y, there's s**t that looks like dinosaurs,

10:23

and there's probably s**t that look like dinosaurs in

10:26

the biblical times. Definitely were, because they're a whole

10:28

lot closer than 65 million years

10:30

ago. Cave

10:32

Paintings and Petroglyphs Pretty

10:36

much immediately after crawling from the primordial muck

10:38

and developing opposable thumbs, the first artist was

10:41

hard at work, and the world was literally

10:43

their canvas. Rock art has been found on

10:45

the walls of caves and canyons, everywhere there

10:47

are caves and canyons. However,

10:50

dinosaur cave art seems to be particularly popular

10:52

in North America, especially in Utah. The Cachina

10:54

Bridge of Patasaurus is probably the best known,

10:56

but it turned out to just be a

10:58

snake and a mud stain, so no dinosaur

11:01

there. But what about the Havasupai dinosaur? Okay,

11:03

so I'm looking at a picture of it

11:05

now, you'll also have it on the screen. It's

11:08

extremely rudimentary, and it

11:11

could be anything. In

11:14

autumn 1924, Samuel Hubbard, oh and if

11:16

you're just listening to this as a podcast,

11:18

just know that it looks… just imagine

11:20

that big dinosaur from Jurassic Park with

11:22

a long neck, standing more upright, and

11:25

just rudimentary beyond belief. Like if you took

11:27

away part of it, it could almost look

11:29

like a human. That's how basic it is.

11:32

In the autumn of 1924, Samuel Hubbard was back in

11:34

the Havasupai region of the Grand Canyon. It had been

11:36

in the area twice before, in 1894 and 1895, and

11:38

on one of these earlier expeditions, he

11:44

had noticed some strange carvings on canyon walls

11:46

that he really wanted to take another look

11:48

at. The other

11:52

things, and pictographs, were mostly of recognizable animals, like an ibex and

11:54

some serpents as well as human-like figures

11:57

and implements like shields and spears.

12:00

themes with rock art, however, the dinosaur

12:02

was a little bit unusual. Hubbard

12:05

was an evolutionist and scientist, not a

12:07

creationist, so unlike many other scientists finding

12:09

dinosaurs on canyon walls, he didn't go

12:11

looking for a dinosaur. The dinosaur found

12:14

him. After studying the pictograph

12:16

carefully, Hubbard concluded that the animal was

12:18

pictured upright, balancing on its tail, suggesting

12:20

that whoever drew it had seen a

12:22

living dinosaur. In 1924, paleontology was still

12:24

a very new science, so Hubbard could

12:26

be forgiven for thinking that dinosaurs dragged

12:28

their tails, we know better than that

12:30

today. The images weren't all made

12:33

at the same time, and probably not by the

12:35

same person, but it seemed to suggest that the

12:37

artists chose to depict things they knew and things

12:40

they've seen. Hubbard was of the opinion

12:42

that the dinosaur was reminiscent of

12:44

the very extinct Diplodocus, a long-necked sauropod.

12:46

However, later researchers felt that the dinosaur

12:49

is more likely a depiction of a

12:51

hadrosaur, a duck-billed dinosaur. In a film

12:53

and children's book in the 1970s, the

12:56

dinosaur was identified as an Edmontosaurus, with

12:58

the picture of a petroglyph next to

13:00

a picture of an actual Edmontosaurus in

13:03

a very unnatural pose. We

13:05

have to make sure the petroglyph fits

13:07

the dinosaur, after all. This proof seemed

13:09

very cut and dry, to most five-year-olds,

13:11

I'm sure. Not too far

13:13

away from this carving, scientists also later found

13:15

dinosaur tracks that were definitely dinosaurs living in

13:18

the area. Of course, this doesn't mean they

13:20

lived at the same time, but this is

13:22

a minor detail. Most experts believe that the

13:24

image is actually a stylized bird. It could

13:26

be stylized anything, to be honest. Or

13:29

perhaps the artist first attempted a bird,

13:31

but who knows, perhaps the ancient artists

13:34

saw sauropods and immortalized the majestic creatures

13:36

in their art. Terrasaur

13:38

also showed quite a bit in cave art,

13:40

the Black Dragon Canyon Terrasaur in Emory County,

13:42

Utah. Okay, this is more like… It's

13:46

more… I mean, it's a bird. I'm

13:50

like, that's more like it looks like a

13:52

pterodactyl or some shit, but it's a bird.

13:54

It's clearly a bird! It's

13:56

a pictogram of what could be

13:58

a large monster with outstretched wings

14:00

and possible sharp teeth, not your

14:02

garden variety eagle. The weird bird,

14:04

later identified as a pterosaur, has

14:06

one large deformed wing and another

14:08

much smaller wing. I hope our

14:10

bro had bus fare because he

14:12

definitely wasn't flying anywhere. Eventually, young

14:14

Earth creationists claimed the pterosaur as

14:16

proof and identified it as a

14:18

quetzalacotulus, a Northrapee, a winged reptile

14:20

with a 10-meter or 32-foot wingspan.

14:22

I mean, that's like looking at

14:24

a drawing my four-year-old daughter did.

14:26

And the only thing she's drawn

14:28

is a dragon. And

14:30

then your last quarter is, she'll be like, it's a house!

14:32

I mean, oh yeah, it's a house! Sure,

14:35

okay! Cuz, come on now. Come on,

14:37

you can't just shove your ideas into

14:40

your idea machine and hope that it

14:42

works. It

14:44

doesn't. This is nonsense. Pterosaur

14:46

fossils have been found in the region,

14:49

so at least we know pterosaurs were

14:51

whirring around the skies, but were they

14:53

spotted and painted by an early artist?

14:55

I've since spoiled the fun by claiming this

14:58

pictogram is simply five different images all grouped

15:00

together by a man with a piece of

15:02

white chalk and an active imagination. Pterosaur, all

15:04

five grouped images together? How long

15:06

will this question haunt us? I mean, it's not

15:08

haunting me very long. Even if it was one

15:10

image, it kinda looks like a bird,

15:12

guys. However, quite possibly the most impressive

15:15

pterosaur story is based on art that

15:17

no longer exists. A story

15:19

with more layers than an ogre. The

15:22

second time that joke

15:24

has come up in a few days for

15:26

me. Weird.

15:34

According to legend, the Ilney tribe told

15:36

two 17th century French explorers, Jacques Marchetton's

15:38

Louis-Gelais, a story about the piazza bird.

15:40

The piazza bird had a bad habit of

15:42

snatching people from canoes for many years

15:44

until it was finally killed by a

15:46

group of fearless warriors, and when it

15:48

tried to grab their chief, Oatoga, in

15:51

order to commemorate this amazing feat, a rock

15:53

painting was done of the piazza bird

15:55

near Alton, Illinois. The problem is, there's

15:57

no such Native American legend. It was

15:59

a short story written by an American author,

16:01

John Russell, and first published in 1836.

16:06

However, the story was inspired by an impressive

16:08

rock art described by a French explorer,

16:11

Father Marquette. You can see what I mean

16:13

by the layers here. Yes, it's a nice

16:15

little story, isn't it? Marquette had published a

16:17

description of a rock art depicting two monsters,

16:19

which he and Joliet saw in 1673 on

16:22

a cliff near the

16:24

Mississippi near Alton. The monsters were as big as

16:26

a calf, with horns like a deer and an

16:28

awful look, red eyes abeard like a tiger, a

16:30

face something like a man's body covered with scales,

16:32

and a very long tail that ended in the

16:34

tail of a fish. The artists used

16:37

green, red, and black, and it was also

16:39

so well painted that they had trouble believing

16:41

it had been done by a savage. Oh,

16:43

the 1600s is like, how could a savage

16:45

paint so accurately? Well, you've got

16:47

the same brain and fingers as you. There's no

16:49

mention of wings, but I'm sure they meant to

16:52

add that and just forgot, unfortunately the cliff was

16:54

quarried away in 1847, so the painting is long

16:56

gone. Oh, the past. It's like, oh

16:58

no, no, get rid of that. We need it. We're

17:01

quarrying. We're quarrying, yeah. Get rid of

17:03

all of that priceless ancient art. However,

17:05

Russell's delightful piece of fiction, very loosely

17:08

based on this description, inspired many to

17:10

claim that they'd also seen this dreadful

17:12

painting and various eyewitness descriptions varying wildly

17:14

were soon published in magazines and newspapers.

17:17

Ah, people wanting attention and

17:19

newspapers wanting money, yes. One

17:22

Canadian missionary mentioned in 1698 that

17:25

due to weathering, the paintings were practically gone,

17:27

yet we have credible eyewitness accounts showing up

17:29

over 100 years later. American

17:32

author Perrier Armstrong, 1887, admitted that there were

17:34

no known photos or images of these monsters.

17:36

However, he still published a reconstruction of the

17:38

painting done by an engraver who had not

17:40

seen the original, working off of paintings made

17:43

by people who had not seen the original

17:45

either, but worked off descriptions from people who

17:47

claimed to be familiar with the painting at

17:49

the time, when only vague traces of the

17:51

painting remained, if anything at all. Ah, it's

17:54

just completely made up. So at that point,

17:56

I mean, in the first place it's made

17:58

up, and this is like fourth generations removed

18:00

from made up. So it's extremely fake. Armstrong's

18:03

reconstructions became famous, but look nothing

18:05

like Marquette's description. Armstrong

18:07

was also the first to identify the

18:10

piazza bird as a pterosaur, however no

18:12

pterosaur has horns or a fish-like tail

18:14

tip. For that matter, no self-respecting pterosaur

18:16

or willing to be seen in public

18:18

even vaguely resembles either Marquette's description or

18:20

Armstrong's reconstruction. Yet, it's like a dinosaur

18:22

with a face of a man. And

18:25

a fishtail. Come on. So while

18:27

I hate to spoil everyone's fun, in this case I'm

18:29

fairly certain no natives in Illinois ever encountered

18:31

a pterosaur. Further afield in

18:34

Burnifold Cave in France, you'll find a

18:36

bipedal dinosaur, possibly a theropod, head-butting an

18:38

angry mammoth. Burnifold Cave is well known

18:40

for its 24 paintings of mammoths, but

18:42

you'll rarely hear anything about the dinosaur.

18:44

Is this because the only photo we

18:47

have was taken by a dentist on

18:49

holiday trespassing on private property and therefore

18:51

isn't the best quality image? Or is

18:53

it because evil evolutionists are trying to

18:55

hide the truth about dinosaurs for impressionable

18:57

youngsters? If you guessed

18:59

evil, you get a gold star. Tap

19:04

from Stegosaurus. Deep

19:08

in the impenetrable jungles of Cambodia, we find Tarpon, a mysterious temple

19:10

complex with

19:33

a most perplexing carving. Not as a Buddhist monastery

19:35

between 800 CE and the 1400s by the Khmer

19:37

people, Tarpon temple

19:40

complex became widely known to Western audiences when

19:42

it was featured on the silver screen in

19:44

Lara Croft Tomb Raider in 2001. These

19:56

days lots of tourists visit the temples so one gets

19:58

the jungle isn't that impenetrable anymore. thinking.

22:01

There are a lot of anatomical issues with the

22:03

dinosaur. Firstly, the head is too big. It looks

22:05

like a hippo's head, not a Stegosaurus' head. Around

22:08

a quarter of the size of the body, Stegosaurus had

22:10

a very small head. Both the head and the tail

22:12

were long, graceful, and taper to a point. Another

22:15

problem is the lack of a

22:17

Thagomizer, the arrangement of four tail

22:19

spikes that led to the sad

22:21

demise of the late Thag Simmons.

22:27

The tail spikes are one of the more unique

22:29

features of the Stegosaurus, so it seems odd

22:31

that an artist would ignore them. The Stegosaurus also

22:33

had around 17 plates on its

22:35

back, not six, and the two small

22:38

horns or large ears were not sure

22:40

on the carvings head present another problem,

22:42

as the Stegosaurus had neither floppy ears

22:44

nor horns. The position of the tail

22:47

is also problematic. Dinosaur tails didn't hang

22:49

down, but were mostly held horizontally. So,

22:51

can we explain these discrepancies? Our current

22:54

restorations of dinosaurs involve a

22:56

fair amount of guesswork. Soft tissue and

22:58

cartilage don't fossilize well, and if

23:00

you're trying to assemble the skeleton of a creature

23:02

you've never seen before, you're bound to get something

23:04

wrong. It's possible that Stegosaurs, like any other species

23:07

on Earth, exhibited some variety, more

23:10

or less, or no spikes on the tail

23:12

or a bigger skull. It's also possible that

23:14

juveniles only grew their spikes as they matured,

23:16

so perhaps a young Stegosaur didn't have tail

23:19

spikes yet. It's also possible that the artist

23:21

didn't have a living Stegosaur posing when he

23:23

did the carving. Perhaps he

23:25

only saw the creature once or twice, and

23:27

was working off memory, or worse, he'd never

23:29

seen a Stegosaur and was working off other

23:31

people's descriptions. Our carver also had a small

23:33

canvas, a limited circular area on which to

23:35

work, so perhaps left off some details, like

23:37

tail spikes and 11 plates,

23:39

in order to fit the picture into the circle. Artists

23:42

are also well known for taking all kinds of

23:44

unholy liberties when it comes to creating art, so

23:46

perhaps what we're seeing is a stylized impression of

23:48

a Stegosaurus. We gotta dig real deep to make

23:50

this one work, don't we? Or

23:53

it could just be something else, and

23:55

Stegosaurus didn't roam around with

23:57

the ancient Khima people. So

26:00

they're a little faded, but the animals

26:02

are still recognizable and include things like

26:04

an eel, bird, bat, fox, dolphin, and

26:06

three dogs, or perhaps two dogs and

26:08

a weasel. We can't really tell. However,

26:10

alongside these living animals, we find a

26:12

pair of long-necked creatures, their necks intertwined,

26:14

which according to believers could be two

26:16

sauropods, either fighting or courting, who knows.

26:18

One of the sauropods has an oddly

26:20

shaped tail that could be clubbed or

26:22

cleft with spikes on the end. Skeptics

26:25

have suggested mythological creatures. Personally, I'm

26:27

leaning towards a giraffe, but in

26:29

1987, a schonosaurus, a type of

26:31

sauropod, always uncovered with what appears

26:33

to be a clubbed tail. In

26:36

2009, we also found another sauropod, the Spino-fursaurus,

26:39

with spikes on the

26:41

end of its

26:45

tail, so not only have we found two possible

26:47

sauropods that resemble one of the dinosaurs in the

26:49

tomb, the carvings also depict details that would only

26:52

be rediscovered by scientists over 500 years later. The

26:55

second sauropod doesn't have anything remarkable about its

26:57

tail, so we're possibly looking at two different

26:59

dinosaurs or an adult or a juvenile fighting

27:01

over territory. It seems the people in Northern

27:04

England in the late 1400s had a front

27:06

row seat to sauropod battles. Personally,

27:08

I would have stuck around long enough

27:10

to get a detailed view for an

27:13

engraving for a tomb, but maybe fighting

27:15

dinosaurs were friendlier than fighting giraffe. Again,

27:17

it looks vaguely like a dinosaur, that's

27:19

it. St.

27:21

George and the Dragon St.

27:25

George slaying the ferocious dragon is a

27:27

very common motif in medieval art. According

27:30

to the story, a dragon was eating the

27:32

town's livestock and demanding human sacrifices. A beautiful

27:34

princess was chosen to be the sacrifice, but

27:37

before she was killed, the brave George showed

27:39

up, killed the dragon, and saved the damsel.

27:41

Th- I used to live next to a

27:43

pub that was called the George and Dragon.

27:46

It's all about this. It

27:49

was all about beer, but the name was

27:51

all about this. The story was pretty well

27:53

known throughout Europe, and many an artist used

27:55

as an inspiration for their masterpiece, so we

27:57

have many paintings of many different dragons of

28:00

various sizes. sizes, and ferociousness all over Europe.

28:02

St. George's Chapel in Barcelona, Spain contains

28:04

an altar cloth depicting a dragon with

28:06

a long crocodilian-type body and long curved teeth

28:09

at the front of the jaw with

28:11

smaller teeth toward the back, all very

28:13

reminiscent of a nofosaurus. In the French National

28:15

Library, we find an image of a

28:17

dragon with a flattened head, a feature

28:19

typical of the Barriengst dinosaur, and in

28:21

Belgium, a slender reptile with a long neck

28:23

makes an appearance even though there were

28:25

no crocodiles or monotelisms running around Belgium

28:27

in 1440. Many

28:29

other works of art use a more

28:31

generic jagged dragon shape that could be

28:34

interpreted as pretty much any dinosaur, though

28:36

sauropods and ceratopsians seem to be particularly

28:38

popular. The dragon is also sometimes depicted

28:40

as a sea monster. In one image,

28:42

St. George swoops down on a winged

28:44

horse to save the princess from an

28:47

island guarded by a sea dragon that

28:49

looks remarkably like a mesosaur. Clearly, the

28:51

artist must have seen living or dead

28:53

dinosaurs, I'm guessing dead, since a dead

28:55

dinosaur is less likely to try and

28:57

eat you. Sea dragons look so different

29:00

because each artist was inspired by whatever

29:02

dinosaur lived in their part of the

29:04

world. However, I'm more intrigued by the

29:06

winged horse. If dragons were based on

29:08

dinosaurs, what was the inspiration for the

29:10

flying horse? It's like a unicorn or

29:12

a pegasus. My four-year-old daughter would

29:15

love it! Sea

29:17

Dragons Sea

29:21

dragons show up quite a lot in ancient

29:23

art, especially maps, leading to some suggestions that

29:26

sailors ran into marine reptiles like pliosaurs and

29:28

mesosaur and turned their chilling adventures into

29:30

art for future generations to marvel at. One

29:32

of the oldest tales of sea serpents we

29:35

have in written form comes from Olus Magnus

29:37

in his book Historia der Gentibus, in

29:39

which he tells the story of a Catholic

29:41

priest exiled from his homeland of Sweden coming

29:44

face to face with a sea serpent around

29:46

23 meters or 75

29:48

feet long near an island called Mu

29:50

in 1522. As

29:53

we know, the Catholic priests never lie, the story

29:55

must be true. In

29:57

1539, Magnus wrote another book, Carter Marina, in which

29:59

he It's

32:00

brown in color, it appears to be lying down.

32:02

So what are we looking at? There

32:04

have been many suggestions, including some

32:07

kind of theropod the family T.

32:09

rex belongs to, perhaps a hadrosaur

32:11

or the ever-reliable sauropod, just a

32:13

tiny little one. As one

32:15

person also pointed out, the name crocodile leopard

32:17

could refer to an animal that's a combination

32:19

of a reptile and a mammal. If you're

32:22

an ancient artist, not a dinosaur expert, I'm

32:24

sure a dinosaur would certainly look like a

32:26

combination of a reptile and a mammal, unless,

32:28

of course, they had feathers. Some skeptics have

32:31

suggested that perhaps the artist was trying to

32:33

bit to monitor lizard and the gnarl monitor

32:35

is native to the region, but the creature

32:37

doesn't really look like a lizard. However, if

32:40

you compare the picture of the croc with,

32:42

say, an otter, the similarities are remarkable. Aggressive

32:44

otter? Undersized sauropod? Or theropod? When

32:48

will the uncertainty cease? The

32:51

Echostones The

32:55

Echostones is a collection of between 11,000 and 16,000

32:57

engraved stones found in Peru,

33:00

ranging from pebbles to boulders. The stone

33:02

is very hard and incredibly difficult to

33:05

carve, but carve the ancients did. The

33:07

stones are engraved with all manner of

33:09

things, recognizable animals and people, flowers, mythological

33:11

creatures, as well as detailed carvings of

33:14

dinosaurs, people riding dinosaurs, dinosaurs eating people,

33:16

and ancient people using telescopes and doing

33:18

complex surgery. Okay, then? Or

33:21

they could be doing other things. Oh, god damn, that

33:23

does look like a dinosaur. There's one on there. I'm

33:25

looking at it right now. It looks like a Stegosaurus.

33:28

Except it's got like two horns on its face. It

33:31

does look like it. It's pretty good. But you've got

33:33

like 16,000 stones. Like,

33:35

that's a lot of drawings. According to

33:38

some sources, the stones were first discovered by

33:40

a Jesuit missionary, Padre Simon, in 1525, and

33:42

some stones were sent to Spain in 1562.

33:46

But I'm not sure how true that is. Then

33:49

in 1966, Peruvian physician Javier Cabrera da

33:51

Kea received a stone carved with what

33:53

appeared to be an extinct fish as

33:56

a birthday gift. Fascinated by this stone,

33:58

he started collecting more. buying 300 stones

34:00

from two brothers, Carlos and Pablo Solte,

34:03

collectors of pre-Inkka artifacts. I get the

34:05

feeling we're about to get to a

34:07

line of, and they were faking it

34:09

or something? Later, we found another

34:11

supplier, a farmer called Basia Oshua, who claimed

34:13

to have found a huge cache of these

34:16

stones when the Inka River overflowed its banks,

34:18

exposing an underground cave. He

34:20

refused to reveal the location of his treasure trove, but

34:22

agreed to sell thousands of the stones to Cabrera, growing

34:24

his collection to 11,000 stones by 1970. Yeah,

34:28

because rumor gets around that there's this Spanish

34:30

dude, and he's buying carved rocks. And

34:32

he'd be like, I can carve a rock. Let's

34:35

make it real interesting and get some money

34:37

from the Spanish dude. It didn't take long

34:39

for other researchers and eventually the government to

34:41

learn about this extraordinary find, which is when

34:43

things got a little hot for our stone-selling

34:46

farmer. Selling the country's antiquities is

34:48

strictly forbidden under Peruvian law, so the farmer was

34:50

promptly arrested. He's going to be like, nah, I

34:52

was just faking it. I was

34:54

doing fraud, not antiquities theft. Placing the prospect

34:56

of spending years in a Peruvian prison, the

34:58

farmer very quickly told anyone who would listen,

35:01

especially the government, that he didn't actually find

35:03

anything. He had personally carved the

35:05

15,000 stones he said it initially found. To back

35:07

his story up, he even showed them how he

35:09

did it. The stones were declared a hoax, the

35:11

farmer released, and the matter considered closed. However,

35:14

not everyone was convinced. He admitted to it.

35:16

I know he's got good reason to. But

35:19

they would have looked into this, right?

35:21

Cabrera had his own theories about where

35:23

the stones came from, featuring aliens and

35:25

advanced civilizations. He wasn't that interested in

35:27

dinosaurs. In 1996, he opened a

35:29

museum, showcasing his vast collection. Those who were

35:31

convinced the eco-stones are the real deal believe

35:33

that before forging farmer, Achea, only told authorities

35:35

he forged the stones because he didn't want

35:38

to go to prison, which seems like a

35:40

reasonable theory to me. I wouldn't want to

35:42

go to Peruvian prison either. In a later

35:44

interview with a journalist, he even claimed that

35:46

he lied about forging the stones, and it

35:48

does seem a bit unlikely that a single

35:50

farmer can forge around 15,000 stones he

35:52

wouldn't have had a lot of time left for farming. I mean, he

35:55

could have just forged some. He could have found a bunch, and then

35:57

just been like, yeah, I'll just forge some more interesting ones so I

35:59

can sell them for him. The

50:00

very last reptile killed by Beowulf, which ended

50:02

up killing Beowulf as well, was a flying

50:04

reptile with bat-like wings of venomous bite and

50:07

breathing fire to boot, hoarding its treasures in

50:09

a cave. Apparently, this

50:11

fits the description of

50:13

a pteranodon, one of

50:15

the largest known pterosaurs with a wingspan

50:17

of over 6 meters. I

50:19

didn't realize pterodons were venomous, breathed fire,

50:21

and loved gold. Yeah, they're like keeping

50:24

its treasures in a cave. It's

50:26

like, why would a dinosaur value this shit? Although,

50:29

what are those birds? Like

50:31

silver, they're always stealing bits of foil and

50:33

shiny things? Is it magpies? Of course, the

50:35

monster Beowulf is best known for slaying is

50:37

Grendel. Grendel wasn't just a nickname. Apparently, it

50:40

referred to a specific species of animal.

50:42

The Danes may have viewed it as

50:44

a demon-like monster and fiend straight from

50:46

hell, but descriptions of Grendel and his

50:48

mum indicate that both creatures were bipedal.

50:50

Grendel had a very tough hide, but

50:52

its forelimbs, or claws, were small. They

50:54

had large, strong jaw and huge teeth

50:56

and could easily swallow the body of

50:58

a man. It was also a fierce

51:00

hunter that preferred to hunt at night.

51:02

All of this seemed to add up

51:04

to a velociraptor, the cute little guys

51:06

from the first Jurassic Park movie. Cute

51:09

and scary as fuck. Though

51:11

something Grendel could have been a T-Rex, this

51:13

definitely puts Beowulf's adventures in a

51:15

whole new light. The

51:18

Dragons of Herodotus and Regulus Due

51:22

to their importance in mythology, it's no surprise

51:24

to find tales of dragons in the work

51:26

of ancient Greek and Roman scholars and philosophers.

51:28

A once- to-do-fly

51:53

towards Egypt each spring, where they

51:55

were usually killed by the Iberese's

51:57

kind of bird well before they

51:59

arrived. thinks they would eventually learn

52:01

and go somewhere else. Investigating

52:04

the story further, Herodotus came across a pile of

52:06

bones too many to count just outside of the

52:08

city. He described these winged

52:10

snakes as small and similar in shape

52:12

to water snakes, but with wings that

52:15

resemble those of a bat rather than

52:17

a bird. Had Herodotus discovered some suicidal

52:19

pterosaurs based on leathery wings? The

52:22

description of a water snake doesn't really

52:24

gel with the image of a pterosaur,

52:26

but if you're hunting for dinosaurs in

52:28

ancient sources, it's important to only focus

52:30

on the details that prove your point

52:32

and ignore the details that don't, so

52:35

clearly Herodotus had encountered pterosaurs. Roman legionaries

52:37

also had encounters with dragons. Around

52:39

256 BCE during the First Punic

52:41

War, Roman General Marcus Regulus and his

52:43

unit were camped at the Bagradus River

52:45

near Carthage when they were attacked by

52:47

a most ferocious creature who managed to

52:49

eat a few of them before it

52:51

was finally killed with a catapult and

52:53

spears. It had glowing eyes, a flickering

52:55

forked tongue, and large fangs. The creature

52:57

was about 120 feet, 36 meters long,

52:59

and crawled on its belly. The animal

53:01

was skinned, and the skin and jaw

53:03

was shipped off to Rome where it

53:05

was preserved in a temple until it

53:07

disappeared sometime during the Numitene War, 143-133

53:09

BCE. This

53:13

little detail really adds to the authenticity of

53:15

the tale. Unfortunately, all the tellers of this

53:17

tale were too young to have seen this

53:19

remarkable jaw and skin for themselves. So what

53:21

did the Roman legionaries kill that day if

53:23

not a dragon? It

53:26

didn't have feet. I'm thinking a really big

53:28

snake that has since gone extinct because it

53:30

was killed by Romans intruding on its territory,

53:32

but I could be wrong. But

53:34

most likely you're right. Historically,

53:36

up to the 1500s, you get quite a

53:38

lot of accounts of encounters with dragons, but

53:40

they gradually became less and less. Apparently,

53:43

it was only in 1910 when someone finally

53:45

claimed that dragons were only a myth. Before

53:48

that, dragons were accepted to be real animals.

53:50

Rare, perhaps, but still very real. They breathed

53:52

fire. How do you think that works? Who

53:54

knows? Perhaps a few dinosaurs did manage to

53:57

hang on a bit longer. Neo-Dinosaurs

54:04

Living dinosaurs, also called Neo-Dinosaurs, make

54:06

up their own category of cryptids

54:08

and include

54:11

animals that are considered remarkably dinosaurian

54:13

in alleged appearance. Is dinosaurian a

54:15

word? If it is, I like

54:17

it. My son would like he's

54:19

obsessed with dinosaurs because he's three.

54:21

Of course he is. Soaropods

54:24

seem to be the most

54:26

common kind of Neo-Dinosaur cryptid,

54:29

but Ceratopsians, Iguadonts, and

54:31

Cerapods also show up in reported

54:33

sightings. They've been spotted on every

54:35

continent except Antarctica. Either they don't

54:37

like the cold or the penguins

54:39

don't mind them and therefore haven't

54:41

reported them yet. Falling

54:47

back on the Colacanth argument, a fish considered

54:49

to have gone extinct in the Cretaceous area only

54:51

to be caught off the coast of South

54:53

Africa in 1938, cryptozoologists argue

54:56

that if a fish could stay hidden for millions of

54:58

years, why not dinosaurs? Possibly

55:01

the most famous cryptid to ever not

55:03

quite walk the Earth is Loch Ness

55:05

Monster. For a long time it was

55:07

believed that Nessie was the last surviving

55:10

pliosaur since pictures of Nessie resemble an

55:12

elasmosaurus. As much as a floating log

55:14

could resemble an elasmosaurus. Loch Ness is…

55:17

yeah, we've done videos about this. Loch

55:19

Ness Monster ain't real, I'm sorry. Loch

55:22

Ness is very deep, but not that

55:24

big, so if a colony of pliosaurs

55:26

was chilling around the highlands they would

55:28

have been found by now. We're pretty

55:30

sure Nessie isn't real, however many a

55:33

cryptozoologist has spent sleepless nights wondering whether

55:35

all the pliosaurs and pliosaurs went extinct

55:37

65 million years ago along with their

55:39

land-dwelling cousins. Yeah, you know who's not

55:41

wondering about that? Cryptozoologists?

55:44

Zoologists. Why

55:48

is it even called cryptozoology? Very

55:53

strange, Nessie's not real, chill. The oceans

55:55

are vast and very deep, so perhaps

55:57

a colony might have survived somewhere. of

56:00

the ocean, it seems that you're most likely

56:02

to run into a neodynosaur in the jungles

56:04

of Africa. In fairness, Africa is a big

56:06

continent with some pretty dense forests and lots

56:08

of rural villages with a low village account,

56:10

so if there were dinosaurs running around, this

56:12

is most likely where they'd be. Probably

56:15

the best known of the African

56:17

neodynosaurs is the Mokkale Membe, a sauropod-like

56:19

three-toed amphibious creature calling the swamps on

56:21

the rivers of the Congo basin in

56:24

Central Africa home. That's

56:26

exactly how elusive a 20-ton of patasaurus can

56:28

be, though, since no one's ever been able

56:30

to catch more than a glimpse of her.

56:32

Other neodynosaurs running around Africa include the Emala-natoka,

56:35

a lost ceratopsian

56:38

elephant killer. The

56:41

creature is reddish-bound in color, hairless, and almost as

56:43

large as an elephant with massive legs, but still

56:45

able to submerge itself underwater. If

56:47

a hapless elephant should come along and

56:49

try to cross the swamp, the Emala-natoka

56:52

will attack the elephant savagely, disemboweling it

56:54

with the horn on its snout. It

56:56

doesn't eat the elephant, though, like the

56:58

hippo it's a herbivore that wakes up

57:00

each morning and chooses violence. Wait,

57:03

is this animal killed to defend

57:05

themselves? This guy just kills for

57:07

fucking fun. That's

57:09

crazy. The horn is solid

57:12

ivory, like the tusks of an elephant, not compressed

57:14

hair like the horn of a rhino. Oh my

57:16

god, I'm learning so many things today. A

57:19

rhino's horn is just

57:21

compressed hair? What?

57:25

How exactly do we know this, seeing as no

57:27

one has ever caught one? I'm not entirely clear.

57:29

Of course, we have no fossils showing that Cerap

57:32

totems ever inherited Africa, but let's not get tripped

57:34

up on details. Oh wait,

57:36

so I'm sorry, I lost

57:38

the point for a second. I thought

57:40

this was actually a neodynosaur, as in

57:42

a dinosaur that does exist, but this

57:44

doesn't make sense. We

57:56

also have stegosaurs, the mebleu

57:58

mebleu mebleu. impressive, they

58:00

named it Thrice, and the Naguma Mene.

58:03

The Mebelu-mebelu-mebelu is a semi-aquatic creature, preferring

58:05

swamps, and has planks growing out of

58:07

its bag according to one witness. At

58:10

least stegosaurs did live in Africa, so

58:12

we're getting a little closer, but they

58:14

were definitely not aquatic. The Cassi Rex

58:17

is supposedly a large theropod dinosaur living

58:19

in East Africa, but it seems that

58:21

even the diehards agree that this one

58:23

is unlikely, since there's a distinct lack

58:26

of rhinos and buffaloes with really big

58:28

bite marks in them. Across

58:30

the oceans in South America, chilling in the

58:32

Atacama Desert in Chile, you might be lucky

58:35

or unlucky enough to cross paths with the

58:37

Arika Beast, and in an interesting case of

58:39

evolving dinosaur, the cryptid was originally described as

58:41

a large bipedal creature similar to a kangaroo

58:44

in the 80s, but in the 90s the

58:46

description changed to a creature more resembling a

58:48

velociraptor from Jurassic Park. As our understanding of

58:50

dinosaurs changed, so does the description of this

58:53

monster, with later descriptions even including feathers. It's

58:55

feathered monstrosity, or scaly or hairy, depending on

58:58

who saw it, and when they saw it

59:00

is around 6 feet, that's 1.8 meters tall,

59:02

with sharp teeth and a three-toed footprint. It's

59:19

also very far, so you might not be able to outrun

59:21

this guy. The most recent reports of this creature that I

59:23

could find dated to 2004, so this dinosaur is

59:26

still alive and well, or it was

59:28

20 years ago. There are many more

59:30

examples of neodynosaurs all over the world,

59:32

though, so far no one has ever

59:34

managed to catch one. So, are there

59:36

living dinosaurs running around the jungles of

59:38

Africa, or are there sightings based on

59:41

animals that we just haven't identified yet?

59:43

Or perhaps our ancestors lived with the

59:45

last dinosaur holdouts now long gone and

59:47

the tales of swamp monsters were passed

59:49

on from one generation to the next,

59:51

culminating in the less-than-scientific field of cryptozoology.

1:00:00

literature, and the Bible, and if you're still

1:00:02

not convinced, it's time to pull out the

1:00:04

big guns. Science. Okay,

1:00:07

bestie, I-E-N-C-E. What is this? Do

1:00:10

we have any concrete scientific proof that

1:00:12

dinosaurs and humans live together? Well, we

1:00:14

might. At the very least, there's some

1:00:16

evidence that dinosaurs didn't die out millions

1:00:18

of years ago. Soft tissue,

1:00:20

including stretchy soft tissue, collagen, blood vessels,

1:00:23

cells, and proteins have been recovered from

1:00:25

dinosaur fossils. This is remarkable, since while

1:00:27

it's theoretically possible for soft tissue to

1:00:29

be preserved for thousands of years in

1:00:32

a cool, dry, sterile environment, the odds

1:00:34

of soft tissue surviving for 65 million

1:00:36

years seems impossible and could suggest that

1:00:39

radiometric dating is even less reliable than

1:00:41

we think. Apparently, soft tissue has been

1:00:43

found in a long list of dinosaurs,

1:00:46

including Tyrannosaurus rex, Hadrosaurus, Triceratops, Sisomosaurus,

1:00:48

and two other dinosaurs that I'm

1:00:50

not going to

1:00:53

even try to pronounce because oh my lord, I've

1:00:55

never heard of them and I'd…

1:00:57

what is that word? A

1:01:00

number of Meso-Mesoic marine reptiles have

1:01:02

also been discovered with some of

1:01:04

their biomaterials still intact. According

1:01:06

to a bioengineer and professor with University

1:01:08

College of London, the fossils in which

1:01:10

these materials were found showed no evidence

1:01:12

of having been specially preserved by nature

1:01:14

in any way. Basically, they were just

1:01:16

your typical dinosaur fossils suggesting that the

1:01:18

preservation of soft tissues and proteins might

1:01:20

be more common than was previously realized.

1:01:22

In fact, similar finds could be waiting

1:01:24

in a number of bones held in

1:01:26

museums. Of course, to test this theory,

1:01:29

we would have to break the bones and it seems

1:01:31

most museums are quite ready to do that yet. I

1:01:33

do it in the name of science and stick them

1:01:35

back together. No one's going to be upset if there's

1:01:37

a little crack in the bone where they sawed it

1:01:39

open and someone would be like, why is that bone

1:01:42

sawed in half? And they'd be like, well, let me

1:01:44

tell you a story. What we did is we extracted

1:01:46

internal bits of that bone to test. And

1:01:49

then you're learning something, which is what museums are

1:01:51

for. Just break

1:01:53

open the dinosaur bones and stick them back

1:01:55

together afterwards. It's good

1:01:57

for everyone. Does this discovery prove the.

1:01:59

The fact is that we all really want to see a dinosaur,

1:02:01

so we're keen on seeing dinosaurs. We

1:02:25

like to imagine that our ancestors lived

1:02:27

alongside them. However, had they lived together,

1:02:29

our human ancestors would probably have been

1:02:31

eaten by dinosaurs which would have left

1:02:34

a very distinct print in the archaeological

1:02:36

record. Pictures of humans hunting dinosaurs on

1:02:38

cave walls, dinosaur teeth and bone ornaments

1:02:40

and utensils, ancient human bodies with catastrophic

1:02:43

levels of damage as the dinosaurs munched

1:02:45

on their bones and… Yeah,

1:02:48

like at the beginning of this episode, which was

1:02:50

actually yesterday in my time because I took

1:02:52

a little break, was

1:02:55

like, yeah, we'd be able to dominate the shh

1:02:57

out of dinosaurs. Yeah, because we got like nerve

1:02:59

gas and stuff, but people back in the day,

1:03:01

I mean, I'm sure we'd figure it out, like

1:03:04

eventually because we got much bigger

1:03:06

brains than dinosaurs. But without all

1:03:08

that technology, dinosaurs would munch on

1:03:10

our bones. And a lot more stories about

1:03:12

dinosaurs and people living together. The occasional evil

1:03:14

dragon being slain by a bored knight does

1:03:17

not count. Sadly, at the end of the

1:03:19

day, there's no proof that humans and dinosaurs

1:03:21

co-existed. If every story and piece of art

1:03:23

were based on fact, winged horses would have

1:03:25

been flying around Europe, the Minotaur would have

1:03:27

been running around Greece and Picasso would have

1:03:30

had a serious problem with depth perception. Art

1:03:32

by its very nature is subjective, even if

1:03:34

it's a painting of a person or a

1:03:36

place. It's still the artist's impression of the

1:03:38

subject, and even though some stories may even

1:03:42

have no basis whatsoever,

1:03:45

it's called imagination. Savage.

1:03:48

So as much as I enjoyed going down

1:03:50

this rabbit hole, I think I can say

1:03:52

with a fair amount of certainty, dinosaurs and

1:03:54

humans never co-existed. If you still believe that

1:03:56

sauropods with their long necks roamed the earth

1:03:58

along with our ancestors is dying.