no it is not , this information comes from people who study these fossils , i doubt anyone on this fourm knows more then archologists who study this for a living
Why? Do you think blaze got the measurements wrong because he did not measure them himself? Well, he listed the sources, so we can check.
As for the authority of scientists, we definitely should not underestimate it like many cranks do, but it can be overestimated as well. Scientists are ultimately workers, not living encyclopedias. My paleontology class was taught by a PhD paleontologist who did not know that Ankylosaurus and Tyrannosaurus co-existed (her specialty are invertebrates such as ostracods rather than vertebrates, for those who are interested).
This is because the education system is designed on teaching skills rather than a list of facts you can look up on Wikipedia (though there are things you absolutely should memorize).
With that in mind, let's look at the actual source of the grizzly-size claim (as the museum did not measure/calculate it themselves):
digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/handle/2246/1588/v2/dspace/ingest/pdfSource/bul/B243-0002.pdf?sequence=1As the title says, this is a paper about the systematic of borophaginae. Normally, a scientist would not make claims without evidence. However, scientists can make errors, too. The size of E. haydeni takes up precisely one sentence in a PDF file with 390 pages and has very little to do with the paper's main topic and purpose. Neither is there any citation given. It is perfectly possible that the author put effort and research in getting that figure right and simply didn't show it. Or the author thought that, since E. haydeni was big and majestic, it was appropriate to tangentially give a rough guess of its size.
Now, you could argue that peer reviewers exist to weed out such inaccuracies. And that's true. However, given the focus this sentence got in such a large paper, it is possible that it flew under the radar or that it was not important enough to E-Mail Wang et al. how they got that figure.
For this reason, Wang et al.'s paper (and the museum) is probably not a "blatantly false" source. But no perfect one either.
It would be fine on its own, but blaze is better. He has shown his measurements and his methodology. I would argue that blaze is more reliable than even Sorkin who devoted significantly more page space to Epicyon's size than Wang et al. did. Blaze at least used a variety of allometric equations found in the literature while Sorkin used simple isometric scaling.
