|
Post by theropod on Jul 20, 2013 19:20:27 GMT 5
It is sad for the people who don't question what they see and simply believe the stuff they can read there.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 21, 2013 14:40:20 GMT 5
It is actually far worse all those dinosaurs in there are featherless, but considering the age of that book it is one of the few things you cannot blame on Peters.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 21, 2013 15:24:32 GMT 5
Also, 230 tonnes for the blue whale.... I don't know where he took his sources. I remember to have seen the depiction of Kronosaurus in paleoworld.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 21, 2013 15:30:32 GMT 5
You know Dave Peters, sources are at best a nuisance to him.
|
|
Derdadort
Junior Member
Excavating rocks and watching birds
Posts: 267
|
Post by Derdadort on Jul 21, 2013 16:30:55 GMT 5
Ahhh, Dave Peters, I knew I heard this name somewhere else. He's the guy from reptileevolution...
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 29, 2013 18:21:41 GMT 5
"Deinosuchus wins! My favorite croc!!! Maybe I should start overrating this magnificence crocodilian" --Dinosaur
Just had to post this!
|
|
Derdadort
Junior Member
Excavating rocks and watching birds
Posts: 267
|
Post by Derdadort on Jul 29, 2013 18:38:25 GMT 5
Who is Dinosaur? The second sentence sounds a bit ironic.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 29, 2013 18:40:29 GMT 5
Dinosaur is a well known fanboy who was active on Carnivora a few month ago. That guy was really funny!
He also wrote songs about his primary subject of bias, T. rex, if I remember correctly.
|
|
Derdadort
Junior Member
Excavating rocks and watching birds
Posts: 267
|
Post by Derdadort on Jul 29, 2013 18:45:07 GMT 5
So this means he is serious about the second sentence? Not sure if troll or just stupid...
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 29, 2013 20:41:24 GMT 5
Yes, he was fully serious (unless more or less everything he wrote was intended to be a joke, but it appeared he was simply stupid in an amusing way)
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 5, 2013 16:55:53 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 5, 2013 17:14:17 GMT 5
For some reason people always claim T. rex to have been capable of feats explicitely disproven in the literature, particularly for it. dinosaur was a true comedian!
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 7, 2013 1:15:16 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 7, 2013 1:55:15 GMT 5
It is true he produces some more or less scientific arguments, but all his points (many totally hypothetised) are the absolute most liberal limit to estimating the weight, while he gives no reason why this approach should be correct. Also Fang seems to make up a fair amount of "facts" that are indeed his very subjective guesses.
Also while himself claiming femur circumference to be unreliable he later uses it on his crusade to show T. rex is far bigger than Giganotosaurus, not to mention the whole UCMP-phalanx-story.
This by Hutchinson et al. is a very fitting line of response: "Your comments are intriguing but too little information is provided to evaluate them scientifically." and "We have a few specific responses to your many points above, but generally find the argument too unstructured and unclear for a detailed response. We urge you to develop this more explicitly. A lot of implict assumptions are being made and not questioned. It is not clear how your muscle mass estimates were done and how sensitive they are to your assumptions."
Celestial makes some points (which are obviously then being parrotted by fanboys around the globe...) that at least when regarded superficially make sense. This seems to be intended to make people look past that the figures are made up or of questionable relevance and the majority of his points are completely unrelated to the actual estimates, merely making the whole thing confusing and appear scientific.
btw an interesting elaboration from Christopher Brochu: "If the estimate is based on images of the mounted skeleton - as I pointed out in a different comment, the torso *as mounted* is a compromise between having it look like a "normal" torso, facilitating removability of the bones for study and maintenance, and correct anatomical articulation. It was impossible to maximize all three because of the distortion issues, and the gastralia aren't even on them mount - so I would urge extreme caution when using the mounted skeleton to estimate volume." and this is from the osteology: "The scapulocoracoids would probably not have met at the midline, but would nonetheless have closely approached each other in articulation"
The mount or similar restorations probably have too wide a ribcage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 13:13:28 GMT 5
It is true he produces some more or less scientific arguments, but all his points (many totally hypothetised) are the absolute most liberal limit to estimating the weight, while he gives no reason why this approach should be correct. Also Fang seems to make up a fair amount of "facts" that are indeed his very subjective guesses. Also while himself claiming femur circumference to be unreliable he later uses it on his crusade to show T. rex is far bigger than Giganotosaurus, not to mention the whole UCMP-phalanx-story. This by Hutchinson et al. is a very fitting line of response: "Your comments are intriguing but too little information is provided to evaluate them scientifically." and "We have a few specific responses to your many points above, but generally find the argument too unstructured and unclear for a detailed response. We urge you to develop this more explicitly. A lot of implict assumptions are being made and not questioned. It is not clear how your muscle mass estimates were done and how sensitive they are to your assumptions." Celestial makes some points (which are obviously then being parrotted by fanboys around the globe...) that at least when regarded superficially make sense. This seems to be intended to make people look past that the figures are made up or of questionable relevance and the majority of his points are completely unrelated to the actual estimates, merely making the whole thing confusing and appear scientific. btw an interesting elaboration from Christopher Brochu: "If the estimate is based on images of the mounted skeleton - as I pointed out in a different comment, the torso *as mounted* is a compromise between having it look like a "normal" torso, facilitating removability of the bones for study and maintenance, and correct anatomical articulation. It was impossible to maximize all three because of the distortion issues, and the gastralia aren't even on them mount - so I would urge extreme caution when using the mounted skeleton to estimate volume." and this is from the osteology: "The scapulocoracoids would probably not have met at the midline, but would nonetheless have closely approached each other in articulation" The mount or similar restorations probably have too wide a ribcage. I'm surprised that they even wasted their time on that guy.
|
|