|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 16, 2014 12:55:55 GMT 5
Even without measuring along the axis, that Amphicoelias is 75 m long, assuming Sue is 11.7 m long without axial length (I don't want to know it's total length, probably easily over 80 m)!
It is OK if you defend 58 m or something slightly above that (I don't agree with that, but it is not too unrealistic), but that really looks too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 16, 2014 17:10:21 GMT 5
I wasn’t saying a 30m squid would be 100t. I was noting that the sqid in that picture looks similarly massive to the blue whale and Liopleurodon (which both would have to be 100t or more at the lenght they are shown at). It obviously has wrong proportions, making its mantle far too big, which in turn makes it seem on par with the other giant predators also in terms of mass.
That such a monstrosity is supposed to be living in today’s oceans and preyed on by sperm whales–just laughable.
EDIT: But its possible, albeit not necessarily the case, that the scalechart was just an april fool’s joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 16, 2014 22:14:35 GMT 5
 Another one by the same author. Compared to the others, this is decent work, but the models give me the shivers, especially the neck of that Spinosaurus… what I find strange is that he is actually a really good artist when it comes to some animals.   But with others (I mean, look at that megalodon of his!), it’s just terrible. And regarding the accuarcy of the size estimates, they seem to become worse, not better with time. But I should pick on someone different. After all, a few of his works aren’t so terrible and he’s got some talent, so maybe he can improve. |
|
Carcharodon
Junior Member
Allosauroidea Enthusiast
Posts: 211
|
Post by Carcharodon on Mar 16, 2014 22:29:21 GMT 5
 This made ekrixinatosaurus bigger than giganotosaurus  |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 16, 2014 22:55:24 GMT 5
And regarding the accuarcy of the size estimates, they seem to become worse, not better with time. That's very much because he never looks at the publications and makes his own observations with wrong data that he may have read about years ago in some magazine issue. Most of his works are indeed terrible, the sperm whale with a ridiculously small tail and enormously thick peduncle was just marvellous. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 16, 2014 23:34:17 GMT 5
This made ekrixinatosaurus bigger than giganotosaurus Which is particularly sad considering those models look awesome! Who is the author? Grey: Nice to see you didn’t stop posting after all! That sperm whale definitely looks scary. As if someone trying to make a model had run out of clay and tried to finish it anyway. With such carelessness in terms of proportions it is impossible to make a decent size comparison, even if you use accurate size estimates. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 16, 2014 23:53:44 GMT 5
I'm going to be less frequent at posting, for various reasons. But after all, WoA is the best board to discuss.
|
|
Carcharodon
Junior Member
Allosauroidea Enthusiast
Posts: 211
|
Post by Carcharodon on Mar 16, 2014 23:59:59 GMT 5
This made ekrixinatosaurus bigger than giganotosaurus Which is particularly sad considering those models look awesome! Who is the author? is the author. |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Mar 17, 2014 6:13:55 GMT 5
Even without measuring along the axis, that Amphicoelias is 75 m long, assuming Sue is 11.7 m long without axial length (I don't want to know it's total length, probably easily over 80 m)! It is OK if you defend 58 m or something slightly above that (I don't agree with that, but it is not too unrealistic), but that really looks too much. Yeah, it's an old scale, I now think sizes of ~65-70 meters are most likely for a "Barosaurus" type Amphicoelias.http://theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/12532/quote/435?page=3# |
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193 
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Mar 18, 2014 2:24:05 GMT 5
 Eeeee that's crap. And why the hell is used Hartman's old FMNH PR2081, instead of new one? |
|
Carcharodon
Junior Member
Allosauroidea Enthusiast
Posts: 211
|
Post by Carcharodon on Mar 18, 2014 11:28:25 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 21, 2014 0:07:05 GMT 5
That one is definitely very bad! Had he made any real observations that would mean he has seen evidence of sperm whales with that kind of deformity, or 25m pliosaurs–I highly doubt either, that guy is not a scientist. An observation in itself is objective. At worst, it is not relevant, i.e. unrelated to the subject or not corresponding to the norm, or a measurement or identification error ocurred, but with neither we can assume there is a general bias in all of them. Obviously what he does is relying on flawed information he picked up from who-knows-ary sources. A sperm whale does have an enourmously thick caudal peduncle→, he just seemed to have based the proportions (lenght/depth and of course lenght/tail lenght) of the whole animal on some drawing from the middle ages… |
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Mar 22, 2014 9:17:38 GMT 5
 lolololololol The drawings are pretty cool though even if they are outdated |
|
|
|
Post by spinosaurus1 on Mar 22, 2014 9:32:49 GMT 5
the scaly wrinkles, the oversized proportions, the incorect anotomical proportions, the near tail dragging postures, it's burning my eyes!
|
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Mar 22, 2014 9:59:03 GMT 5
the scaly wrinkles, the oversized proportions, the incorect anotomical proportions, the near tail dragging postures, it's burning my eyes! That's the charm, man. |
|
