|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 10, 2019 17:08:49 GMT 5
FMNH PR 2081 vs BYU 9024, both skeletals by Hartman. The 'king' of the dinosaurs now looks more beggar-like than anything else  |
|
|
|
Post by Verdugo on Nov 10, 2019 17:44:51 GMT 5
The 'king' of the dinosaurs now looks more beggar-like than anything else Again, what's the point of this completely unnecessary derogatory comment against T-rex? I thought i have made my intention clear that i don't want to see any more derogatory comments against T-rex coming from you or do you want me to repeat myself? It's ridiculous and just downright childish to be hateful toward an animal who has gone extinct for millions of years just because its fanboys are retarded. Yes, i understand that many fanboys of many animals are rather brain-dead (like Felids fanboys for instance) but the animals themselves (T-rex and Felids) are amazing animals and they are in no fault for this. See and learn more about the animal for what they really are, not through a spiteful, anti-fanboy lens. Also, this is a forum for animal enthusiasts to gather together, you also called yourself 'forum biggest Dino enthusiast', don't you think it's ironic that you keep making derogatory comments against T-rex, who is clearly a Dinosaur? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 10, 2019 17:45:16 GMT 5
That was just for effect of how big BYU 9024 was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Verdugo on Nov 10, 2019 17:55:29 GMT 5
That was just for effect of how big BYU 9024 was. Why? Image speaks more than 1000 words. People see your comparison, they know how big the Sauropod was. What's the point of attaching derogatory-intended words ('beggar-like') to T-rex? When you made size comparisons on other animals, why don't you also add the 'for effect' comments in? And this is not your first time either. Members on Wildfact have also expressed complaints against your unnecessary derogatory comments against T-rex as well. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 10, 2019 18:31:10 GMT 5
Maybe I just got a bit too annoyed by fanboys when posting that. If I disliked Tyrannosaurus rex, I'd back the American mastodon, Columbian mammoth, Purussaurus, Paraceratherium, Siats, Elasmotherium, Megatherium, and African bush elephant over it. Which I don't; I can confidently say Tyrannosaurus rex wins those matches. Anyhow..... Here's Sauroposeidon holotype (Paleo-King) vs Pete III (Franoys). I recommend ignoring the Daspletosaurus holotype scalebar as I have scaled up the holotype (9.35 meters) to 11 meters to match Pete III's size.  |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Nov 10, 2019 18:53:45 GMT 5
Maybe I just got a bit too annoyed by fanboys when posting that. If I disliked Tyrannosaurus rex, I'd back the American mastodon, Columbian mammoth, Purussaurus, Paraceratherium, Siats, Elasmotherium, Megatherium, and African bush elephant over it. Which I don't; I can confidently say Tyrannosaurus rex wins those matches. I mean, it's not like you don't have a beef with mammal fanboys, too. I'm not saying you dislike T. rex per se, but you are taking its fanboys far too seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Nov 10, 2019 20:10:37 GMT 5
Maybe I just got a bit too annoyed by fanboys when posting that. If I disliked Tyrannosaurus rex, I'd back the American mastodon, Columbian mammoth, Purussaurus, Paraceratherium, Siats, Elasmotherium, Megatherium, and African bush elephant over it. Which I don't; I can confidently say Tyrannosaurus rex wins those matches. Anyhow..... Here's Sauroposeidon holotype (Paleo-King) vs. Pete III (Franoys) You do it on the discord server to though you were talking about sauropods the other day then just out of the blue brought up how a sauropod could easily beat a Tyrannosaurus out of the blue no one at all was even talking about Tyrannosaurus. I do wish you would just admit you have a bias against the animal its really clear to see you do even Stevie wonder could see you have an issue with the animal. It's a shame to because you keep letting this bias get in the way and it pisses people of on the discord server it does the same on here and you are also doing it on another forum apparently. And when it comes to size comps regarding Tyrannosaurus and Giga why would anyone use a smaller rex specimen when we have Sue Scotty or Stan or the holotype? They compare much better with the Giga holotype there's a reason smaller specimens are not compared because it's not a fair comparison. There's a reason people like Hartman use Sue and then compare it to the Giganotosaurus holotype pure and simply they have no bias against the animals and if they do they leave it out of their work. Its not like there was never Giganotosaurus individuals that were smaller than the average. We have one good specimen for Giganotosaurus just one good specimen we don't know if this was an average sized animal a big one or even an extreme one its unlikely it's an extreme sized specimen but still. There would have been thousands of different sized individuals around with different proportions we see this pretty clear in Tyrannosaurus and other big theropods it would have been the same with Giganotosaurus sadly we don't have any other specimens to compare. Why don't you create a size comp of a Giganotosaurus that is the same size as the Bucky Tyrannosaurus and then compare that to Stan or Sue or even Scotty i mean if you do not have a problem with Tyrannosaurus i think this should be a pretty fair request. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 10, 2019 20:33:35 GMT 5
Alright, here's something a little different from this thread's recent shenanigans: Maximum steppe mammoth vs Sauroposeidon holotype, by Larramendi and Paleo King respectively  |
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Nov 10, 2019 20:37:29 GMT 5
 Could you create a comp with one of the smaller Mapusaurus specimens seen here with either Stan Sue or Scotty ? id like to see how they compare size wise. Surley theres no issue with this right ? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 11, 2019 21:26:58 GMT 5
A Discord-inspired size comparison: Sarkastodon vs Giganotosaurus, max vs max (AMNH 26641 vs MUCPv-95). Sarkastodon is by Blaze, Giganotosaurus by Hartman  |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 11, 2019 21:38:55 GMT 5
Sue the Tyrannosaurus rex vs the paratype of Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum, credit to Hartman and GSP respectively  |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 14, 2019 4:01:06 GMT 5
As mod of the discussions section, I feel it has become necessary to introduce some rules for this thread. This is to maintain (or reintroduce) a certain minimum standard for size comparisons to be posted here, which have declined to a level of quality that I find frankly unacceptable. Rules (I will copy these to the opening post as well) 1) When posting a comparison, members must explain briefly how they scaled the animals (e.g. animal A scaled to 2.7 m tall at the top of the back, animal B scaled to 12.24 m axial total length), either in the picture itself, or in the post. 2) Scaling in comparisons must be consistent with the given sizes (e.g. if you say your animal is scaled to 2.7 m tall, it mustn’t be 3.4 m tall), and measurements must be reproducible and anatomically sound (i.e. the landmarks you describe must be visible or clearly pointed out, and in accordance with the measurement you are talking about. 3) Comparisons that don’t adhere to the first rule will be moved (by me) to this new thread, link→ until the information is provided. 4) As for the second rule, I will check comparisons randomly or when I have reason to suspect they may be in violation. Comparisons found to be irreproducible with the listed sizes (e.g. a post says an animal is scaled to 10 m long, but the animal as shown in the comparison is actually 8.6 m long) will likewise be moved and hopefully, improved. The level of tolerance depends on the resolution and the precision of the measurement. If you say you scaled something to 11.9 m, it should be reproducible to one decimal digit, when factoring in the imprecision of measurement (e.g. if I cannot see whether a measurement is 2 px longer or shorter, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and taking the figure more likely to be consistent with your measurement, but if it’s still inconsistent then, I’m moving it). These rules is strictly to ensure technical accuracy of comparisons, because for them to actually show what members claim they show shouldn’t be too much to ask. This does NOT constitute censorship of the content itself (e.g. if you want to make a comparison comparing a 10 m T. rex to a 14.5 m Giganotosaurus, you can still do that, no matter how inaccurate it is scientifically, as long as your post clearly says that they are scaled to these sizes), which is a different matter. However of course obvious guidelines still apply, and outside my function as mod I will continue to critique the scientific accuracy of comparisons. I general, please make sure the sizes you scale your animals to have a firm scientific basis, and are consistent with the artistic depictions you use. If asked, you should be able to provide evidence for the sizes you are showing also being accurate scientifically. also it makes sense to reiterate this here 5) Provide proper citations for whatever images you use, preferably on the image itself, or below it if necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 14, 2019 23:23:03 GMT 5
Largest Purussaurus (10.3 meters), vs AMNH 9950 American mastodon (2.89 meters shoulder height), by Larramendi and randomdinos respectively. Will upload to Imgur when I get the chance. Scalebar is 1 meter.  |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Nov 14, 2019 23:25:10 GMT 5
Are these cubes supposed to be one meter long? If so, you might consider clarifying that because currently, your comparison violates the thread's rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Nov 14, 2019 23:31:55 GMT 5
Are these cubes supposed to be one meter long? If so, you might consider clarifying that because currently, your comparison violates the thread's rules. Fixed it |
|
