Baby Dragon Found in Oxfordshire.

eyepod

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jan 4, 2004
Messages
209
Likes
0
Points
32
#31
stonedoggy said:
it's got a tummy button but everyone knows that dragons have eggs....

But surely, even in an egg, the cute ickle foetal dragon would need something to attach it to the yolk? Hence the umbilicus. Crack open a humble chicken egg and you'll see the white stringy proto umbilical cord hanging off the yolk sac and waiting for a chicken foetus to grow on the end of it.

Of course, they're only telling us it's fake because they don't want us knowing it's actually real.


;)
 

littleblackduck

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Aug 16, 2001
Messages
453
Likes
4
Points
49
#32
Re: Call me suspicious.........

Timble said:
...the whole German scientists backstory sounds a bit dodgy.

The dragon is beautifully made, but to my eyes looks more like a early 21st century idea of what a Victorian idea of a dragon would look like than the unreal thing.

I suspect the German correspondence is as fake as the dragon itself. There's a lot of speculation in the article and no-one has actually tested it yet.
I have to agree with Timble that this dragon fetus looks like an extremely modern (and realistic, in so far as a depiction of a mythical creature can be realistic) conception of a dragon. The anatomical detail is astonishing--much too good to have been inspired by XIXth century knowledge of dinosaurs or early art--I don't believe that any dinosaur fossil eggs with fetus remains were known in the 1890's. As for lizards, etc., I don't know enough to hazard a guess if they could have been used as models.

Whoever did the actual work was extremely talented, but it smacks of post-dated hoax.
 

sjwk0

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Messages
341
Likes
2
Points
49
#33
Spook said:
They start of all cute and lovable but before you know it there's no room in the garage to park the car, he's set fire to the neighbours and the vicar won't come around any more.
And the downside is...? :D

Steve.
 

beakboo1

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
2,312
Likes
28
Points
69
#34
Re: Re: Call me suspicious.........

littleblackduck said:
I have to agree with Timble that this dragon fetus looks like an extremely modern (and realistic, in so far as a depiction of a mythical creature can be realistic) conception of a dragon.
Yes, reminds me of the beautiful cover artwork for the Pern books by Ann McCaffrey.
 

stonedog3

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 19, 2003
Messages
858
Likes
14
Points
49
#35
"But surely, even in an egg, the cute ickle foetal dragon would need something to attach it to the yolk?"


so you think there's hope Silbury??????

(sits up and stops wailing)

:D


Kath
 

PeniG

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Messages
2,395
Likes
207
Points
94
#36
Damn, I promised myself not to post till I meet all my deadlines...

But, after someone sent us a fuller picture of the fetal dragon, I decided to forward it to some people I know who do movie special effects, specializing in animal effects, and asked their opinion, quoted below. I'm also going to try to attach the fuller picture, which clearly shows that the adult dragon will be bipedal. I've never done that here or anywhere, so be patient with me if I attach the wrong photo or do something else stupid.

Anyway, Marc says: Heidi and i thought it looked recent (stylistically) as well. I honestly don't know if latex would hold up to formaldehyde. Silicone would, but that would be a real clincher date-wise. Back in those days it seems like they depended more on taxidermy tricks (Fiji mermaids and such) But wax would have been the plastic sculpture medium in wide use then. A fake fake, as you say, i don't think this makes it into Fortean territory
 

PeniG

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Messages
2,395
Likes
207
Points
94
#39
inkedmagiclady said:
Right. Nothing fake has ever made it's way into Fortean territory. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I know, I think his definition of Fortean is a little stricter than mine. What I want to know is why, if you're going to fake a baby dragon, you want to present a provenance that declares it an older fake than it is? It doesn't compute. I'm a little disappointed that he didn't know for sure what materials would stand up to formaldehyde, but I don't suppose there's much call for that in the movie biz. Prop brains in jars are probably floating in some medium that would be less obnoxious if the jar broke.

Anyway, deadlines. I may have to stay offline completely for awhile...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#40
faked fakes

Perhaps it is "faked" like the fossils in Earths crust which are there just to suggest that Earth is NOT really 6008 years old... to the crdeulous... ;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#41
Dragon in a jar.

I thought the dragon in a jar was wonderful. It should be yukky, but there is a charm about it and it's look of serenity that somehow stops it from being revolting and makes it strangely
beautiful. Is it Victorian though? If it is, we are looking at an astounding, and probably pretty valuable, example of the modellers art. The Victorians were skilled and enthusiastic wax modellers, wax flowers and plants in glass domes were a standard item on the Victorian middle-class mantlepiece, so a Victorian wax dragon is not improbable. If it is Victorian, then who made it? And why? What about the look of the dragon itself? What does it tell us about the European mind of the late 19th century and the battle between the mystical/romantic and the rational/scientific? And how does it compare to the popular image of dragons in contemporary art and literiture?
The jar would appear to be of the right type for the era as well, but why is the wax seal around the top so new looking? The article does not explain. Surely if it is new fake, then more care would have been taken to age it. Or had someone already been into the jar before the picture was taken, and resealed it? If they had, then the real make-up of the dragon is already known.
If it is a hoax of a hoax, then perhaps its maker should consider smaller versions , as a dragon in an old Kilner jar at the back of my larder would provide years of amusement for me at others expense.
And of course, what if it really is a dragon?
The enigmatic little beast begs so many questions, and I know my spelling is dreadful, but please, please, FT, follow this story up! How about a bigger article?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#43
well i didnt do it..but i might now!.... what is impressive is the skin, very realisticly textured, it would be intersting to see how it moves in the jar when shaken, weather its all floppy (silicone) or rigid (wax)... i think its a little too small for the jar too...Victorian jar bound things tend to be prity tight in there for some reason (posibly the expense of the liquid?)... the liquid isnt cloudy enough either...
 

Melf

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 6, 2002
Messages
1,704
Likes
8
Points
69
#44
oh a brilliant pre-emtive strike by jon. denaying that he didnt make it. (but we all know that he did ;) :D )

come on jon, admit it. you did make it didnt you? :D

(im joking jon)

seriously now.

if the dragonet is real! (that means other mythical creatures, beings will have to be looked at (sic) again.)
crpytozoology will become a mainstream science then (wether that would be a good or bad thing i dont know?) please discuss.
 

Philo_T

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
1,216
Likes
14
Points
69
#45
I like the fake fake theory myself. That explains why the seal and the fluid both look so clean. Of course, then the letters documenting this as a fake are, well, fake.

But what if the letters documenting this as a fake are fake, but the dragon is really real?!!! :confused:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#47
Looking at the large picture of the dragon in the current FT I noticed that there seems to be a downward droop to the "fingers", which suggests to me that they are not built around a skeleton. They look like the tips of the fingers are curving sideways to the way that the joints bend (no, not sure if that's any clearer about what I was trying to say :( ) So I'm thinking something along the lines of rubber or silicon, but then I don't know much about the materials that could have been used and how they would interact with the fluid in the jar.

Still a beautiful piece of work, though!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#48
I noticed those fingers, and thought it looked a bit arthritic!
It is a bit odd that both Mr Hart and his friend are involved in promotions, lending the whole thing a piscean noisomeness.
But why bother with a fake of a fake, or put such care into it's construction?
I'm waiting for it to turn up on ebay. And yes, I have checked already!
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
19,431
Likes
115
Points
129
#49
Well I suppose it was inevitable:

Fake dragon rakes in deal for author

John Ezard, arts correspondent
Monday March 29, 2004
The Guardian

When Allistair Mitchell announced to the world two months ago that he had found a baby dragon in a jar, he warned that it might be a prewar dirty trick by the Germans.

It wasn't a dragon but a total fake, he confessed yesterday. It was a "dirty trick" by Mitchell "to try marketing my book even before it was published".

Yesterday it brought him reward. Despite being rejected by seven publishers and 36 literary agents, his children's book Unearthly History was given an exclusive deal by Waterstone's. Mitchell published the book at his own expense. The deal means Waterstone's stores will give it high-profile display.

Mitchell's claims hoaxed two national newspapers and an evening paper, and aroused international interest. He said the dragon foetus - with documents in old German gothic script - had been found by a friend whose grandfather worked at the Natural History Museum. But yesterday he confessed it had been faked by model makers involved with the BBC's Walking with Dinosaurs series.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1179901,00.html

Pro model makers though.

Emps
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#51
Ha! The truth will out!

And I sooo wanted it to be Victorian. Damn.
I'd be far more interested in a book about the faking and media response to the dragon itself, than the sub-Harry Potter tome that the bloke seems to be flogging off the back of it.

Oh well.:rolleyes:
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
19,431
Likes
115
Points
129
#52
AndroMan said:
True! Even if it was a piece of silicon trickery, it was a work of beauty and brilliance. Well worth the space in the FT 182.

Certainly beat the 'Alien Autopsy' alien, hollow.

:D
Exactly - it is a fantastic job they did. One thing I did wonder about though:

1. Walking with Dinosaurs was largely done using 3D computer graphics (mainly Maya I believe) although they did use some models it seems a wholey different job to producing large animatronic dinosuar heads. It may be a testament to the skill of the model makers but do we even know if the object is real? Could it all be computer graphics?

2. I am suprised that such in demand model makers would go along with the plan - it must have taken days of hard work to make.

Just a couple of thoughts ;)

Emps
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#53
Emperor said:
2. I am suprised that such in demand model makers would go along with the plan - it must have taken days of hard work to make.
Good points, but the modelmaker part's probably the most believable.

People who make these sort of detailed scale models can be a bit, errm... fanatical in their attention to detail and dedication to what can amount to a lifetime hobby.

Think about the 'Fast Show' sketch about the animator doing stop-motion claymation, in the mold of 'Wallace and Grommit'. ;)

And, yes, on another look at the photos, CGI can not be ruled out, either.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#54
DOH!!

So wanted it to be real, sort of knew it couldn't be.

What a beautiful mantelpiece object of desire, how cool would it to have that on a book shelf!

The recent'ish movie Reign of Fire sprung to mind, this awkward but at times decent dragon movie, will be getting a sequel...is that a good thing or not??
:confused:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#55
This story should never have been published in the FT. I mean ... open the f****g jar! If it still seems like a dragon then by all means publish the report, but I mean come on!!

If I found a pickled dragon in my garage I would tip it out onto a bench and snip into it with a penknife. If it turned out to be anything but rubber then I would send it in for analysis.

This whole story is too far fetched to be called a Fortean story. No way in the world is this a dragon.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
19,431
Likes
115
Points
129
#56
Steve Jefferson: Ahhhhhhhh but it is a Fortean story - obviously if it had been a dragon (or unknown cryptid) then it would have been obviously Fortean but fakes, hoaxes and people believing in it, etc., etc. are all worthy. Just think about something like a statue weeping blood - the actual incident is obviously of interest but if it was discovere to be a fake then a lot of people (esp. skeptics) would tend to shrug and consign the report to the wastebin of history but a Fortean would be interested in the reason for the faking, the way it is was done and why as well as putting into a broader context.

Just my opinion but I personally don't think the story has lost any of its 'value or interest by being revealed as a fake it just accretes extra layers of relevance ;)

Emps
 

beakboo1

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
2,312
Likes
28
Points
69
#57
Absolutely Emps, hoaxing is very Fortean. We all knew from the start there was only the minutest chance of it being a real dragon (dur), the fact that it's a hoax in the shape of a mythical beast makes it doubly Fortean.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#58
Okay. I can buy into that. My own main focus of interest is more on the cultural side of Forteana than any real expectation that anything really weird is ever going to happen in the world.

I still think though that, if the hoaxing and cultural elements are the most important or interesting aspects of the whole story then these can best be kicked off by opening the jar. :sceptic:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#59
oh and another thing, which is a similar point to comments I've made in other threads, the FT is missing a good opportunity here to look into some areas of real interest. Like for example, why are we all so sure that it couldn't be a real baby dragon?

What would we expect to see in the fossil record if dragons like this had ever existed?

What would we expect to see in the cultaral record?

Some lizard have evolved the power to stretch their skin using their ribs to make little gliding wings. I'd like to hear from an evolutionary biologist about what the possibilities are for these proto wings to evolve into something more dragon like.

Etc. etc. et cetera.

So I'm not just being a wet blanket sceptic for the sake of it. I'm just frustrated at the lack of thought that goes into this kind of report, or let's say the lack of creativity in making a real story of it.:glum:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#60
Steve Jefferson said:
This story should never have been published in the FT. I mean ... open the f****g jar! If it still seems like a dragon then by all means publish the report, but I mean come on!!

If I found a pickled dragon in my garage I would tip it out onto a bench and snip into it with a penknife. If it turned out to be anything but rubber then I would send it in for analysis.

This whole story is too far fetched to be called a Fortean story. No way in the world is this a dragon.
:rofl:

If you'd read any C.H. Fort, you'd know, no story is really too far fetched to be a Fortean story!
 
Top