|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 30, 2013 16:38:32 GMT 5
Where exactly has anyone here done anything like making up a 14- 17m T. rex from a small(ler than sue's) maxilla or an unsure phalanx? I am very sure no one would ever believe Tyrannosaurus was 17 (!) m long (although Palaeosaurus did). But as broly said, bony at least believed in Tyranosaurus being 14 m long. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 18:06:09 GMT 5
Over 15m if I'm not mistaken (at least there was this scale showing it at 15,3m, I think for the UCMP maxilla which is 5cm shorter than that of FMNH PR 2081). the 17m (16,8m to be exact) were claimed by the illiterate scholar because Frank Fang's madeup formulas apparently yielded it when filled in with inaccurate figures, and I think many people swallowed that BS.
In any case, I have yet to see such claims here, so what grey posted does by no means apply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2013 18:17:20 GMT 5
Over 15m if I'm not mistaken (at least there was this scale showing it at 15,3m, I think for the UCMP maxilla which is 5cm shorter than that of FMNH PR 2081). the 17m (16,8m to be exact) were claimed by the illiterate scholar because Frank Fang's madeup formulas apparently yielded it when filled in with inaccurate figures, and I think many people swallowed that BS. In any case, I have yet to see such claims here, so what grey posted does by no means apply. Maybe you can make a description stating why Illiterate Scholar's video and Frank Fang's formulae should be ignored completely. You can have some experts back you up as well. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 30, 2013 18:25:49 GMT 5
He already wrote tons of comments under his video.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 19:06:31 GMT 5
Grey: A reply to what was that? Sounds like one of those madeup giant-T. rex-specimen-scales to me. Comparing something like that to what we do here is pretty insulting. Where exactly has anyone here done anything like making up a 14-17m T. rex from a small(ler than sue's) maxilla or an unsure phalanx? Fragillimus335: Be a bit more patient with grey, he often writes stuff like that but you can get used to it. The oversized T. rex based on one isolated bone or poorly described fragmentary remains are the same thing that every reconstruction we make based on smallish, fragmentary, poor remains (footprints !). No wonder why Hartman makes reconstructions based on at least some substantiate material. Regarding fragillimus post, that was no attack but a recall of what is real science here (and what would think a guy like Hartman of some posts here, even though he understands the enthusiasm). But it seems like the real science curiously disturbs some minds. And certainly, if there was an overenthusiastic fanboy of T. rex here, we would have had such scales like referred. But instead we have a majority of people who despise T. rex.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2013 19:10:42 GMT 5
Grey: A reply to what was that? Sounds like one of those madeup giant-T. rex-specimen-scales to me. Comparing something like that to what we do here is pretty insulting. Where exactly has anyone here done anything like making up a 14-17m T. rex from a small(ler than sue's) maxilla or an unsure phalanx? Fragillimus335: Be a bit more patient with grey, he often writes stuff like that but you can get used to it. The oversized T. rex based on one isolated bone or poorly described fragmentary remains are the same thing that every reconstruction we make based on smallish, fragmentary, poor remains (footprints !). Footprints give an idea of the dimensions of a complete foot, it's not the same as estimates based on a single isolated toe bone of uncertain placement. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 19:15:56 GMT 5
The oversized T. rex based on one isolated bone or poorly described fragmentary remains are the same thing that every reconstruction we make based on smallish, fragmentary, poor remains (footprints !). Footprints give an idea of the dimensions of a complete foot, it's not the same as estimates based on a single isolated toe bone of uncertain placement. It depends of the quality of the preservation and at the end, it remains a huge extrapolation based on numerous uncertainities. I don't reject such footprints can come from records breakers, but establish a definitive size estimate is premature. Here again we are in the real of the "perhaps, perhaps not", and some keeps to argue "absolutely true". |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 19:28:16 GMT 5
Grey: A reply to what was that? Sounds like one of those madeup giant-T. rex-specimen-scales to me. Comparing something like that to what we do here is pretty insulting. Where exactly has anyone here done anything like making up a 14-17m T. rex from a small(ler than sue's) maxilla or an unsure phalanx? Fragillimus335: Be a bit more patient with grey, he often writes stuff like that but you can get used to it. The oversized T. rex based on one isolated bone or poorly described fragmentary remains are the same thing that every reconstruction we make based on smallish, fragmentary, poor remains (footprints !). No wonder why Hartman makes reconstructions based on at least some substantiate material. Regarding fragillimus post, that was no attack but a recall of what is real science here (and what would think a guy like Hartman of some posts here, even though he understands the enthusiasm). But it seems like the real science curiously disturbs some minds. And certainly, if there was an overenthusiastic fanboy of T. rex here, we would have had such scales like referred. But instead we have a majority of people who despise T. rex. I don't really get what you are talking about. Ichnites reflect the size of the whole foot, not a single phalanx. hartman himself uses MUCPv-95, which is the anterior part of a dentary. You have to differentiate a bit more between madeup stuff (16m T. rex based on a maxilla smaller than that in a 12,3m specimen and a growth formula from a fanboy) highly hypothetical (single phalanx with assignment difficulties, isolated teeth at least in some animals) and normal fragmentary specimens (footprints or large portions of decent-sized bones). The latter are used by scientists, including Hartman himself, for a reason; you can derive a scientific estimate based on them, even tough you have to take it with a grain of salt. Of course you would have biased fanboy scales here if you had a T. rex fanboy. Luckily there is no fanboy here yet, and you should better pray it stays this way instead of calling some of your most important posters, that you happen to disagree with, fanboys. All the time you are undermining others, comparing them to T. rex fanboys, because in your opinion they are "liberal speculators" and not making science the way you want them to. The you yourself do the exact same thing... Sorry, but that definitely sounded like an attack. In one thread, you claim people were unscientific because they take into account footprints or fragmentary fossils. In another thread you extrapolate sizes based on isolated teeth, even tough you had demonstrated yourself how big the error bars are. Think about that before insulting people please! Show me where on this board something has been done that is not "real science", by the definition you posted. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 19:30:10 GMT 5
Footprints give an idea of the dimensions of a complete foot, it's not the same as estimates based on a single isolated toe bone of uncertain placement. It depends of the quality of the preservation and at the end, it remains a huge extrapolation based on numerous uncertainities. I don't reject such footprints can come from records breakers, but establish a definitive size estimate is premature. Here again we are in the real of the "perhaps, perhaps not", and some keeps to argue "absolutely true". Many things are huge extrapolations, yet you use them yourself, don't you? You can hardly think a single tooth is better than a footprint. The latter can in most cases give a very good idea of overall size of the trackmaker. There is a reason such fragmentary findings are not ignored by scientists. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 19:35:32 GMT 5
That's not my definition but the one from Scott Hartman. For discussing regularly with him, his thoughts are not only about the oversized T. rex obviously.
Scales of supergiants theropods or sauropods above what is published or admitted as a consensus based on extrapolations of very smal or very poor material and making the results as facts are not scince.
The megalodons estimates I get are still for most in the actual scientific consensus and are not attempt to revolution anything.
The T. rex at 14,5 m and the Amphicoelias at 80 m are totally the same thing : games of enthusiasts.
It is definitely funny to see how one quote from a man highly respected in the dinosaur research is taken here as an insult.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 19:36:58 GMT 5
It depends of the quality of the preservation and at the end, it remains a huge extrapolation based on numerous uncertainities. I don't reject such footprints can come from records breakers, but establish a definitive size estimate is premature. Here again we are in the real of the "perhaps, perhaps not", and some keeps to argue "absolutely true". Many things are huge extrapolations, yet you use them yourself, don't you? You can hardly think a single tooth is better than a footprint. The latter can in most cases give a very good idea of overall size of the trackmaker. There is a reason such fragmentary findings are not ignored by scientists. Advanced methods have been made for teeth, which yeilds into a consensus among sharks researchers. A footprint is even more hazardous as basis. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 30, 2013 19:46:12 GMT 5
Not Hartmans quote is the insult, it is your interpretation of it and your use as an attack against posters of this forum.
There are also advanced methods for footprints, and they are quite often used in the scientific literature. Sadly, and similar to C. megalodon teeth, the largest ones often remain undescribed. Scientists have used them nevertheless (eg. Wedel), and the figures derived here are completely in agreement with what they got, you are just ignoring it because ot seems too far-fetched for your imagination. Noone here has so far made up those "supergiant theropods and sauropods" which are beyond what is scientifically proposed, and even less beyond what is reasonable.
So far, the only scales where this was the case to a large degree are scales like the ones from Carnivora (like those you showed Hartman I suspect), which primarily oversize T. rex based on ridiculous material. Yes, if you compare what we do here to something like Bone Crusher, you do insult us.
And nothing here revolutions anything, except for your mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 19:50:51 GMT 5
That was no attack but a recall of what is real science. But I can quote one of yours posts about 80 m sauropods being very real and report it to Hartman if you don't understand how this sentence from him was applied to any enthusiastic reconstruction we see on CF or elsewhere.
Yes, 14,5 m T. rex (a toe bone existing) and 80 m A. fragillimus (a partial bone disappeared) are pretty much the same thing.
|
|
Dakotaraptor
Junior Member
Used to be Metriacanthosaurus
Posts: 193 
|
Post by Dakotaraptor on Jun 30, 2013 20:03:22 GMT 5
Footprints? Apatosaurus sized Ceratopsian?, Giant allosauroid being possible 2nd largest theropod after Spinosaurus?, Sauropod being over 200 ton? Not 100 % impossible, but sound pretty doubtful.
Hmmm i feel that based on footprints it would overestimate animals size. There are many factors that change footprint's size and shape.
Anyway 15 m T. rex is certainly very doubtful in my opinion. So is about 16+ metric ton bipedal Spinosaurus. Also Amphicoelias fragilimus may be fake, it would be just Cope's made up, who want to have advantage over Marsh. But i don't say this option is most likely about giant dorsal bone, it couldn't be 100 % ruled though. I am not Amphicoelias hater or biased towards very conservative estimates, but i am against experiments or methods that are biased towards hiper-liberal estimates.
I accept that barely 13 m for largest known Spinosaurus specimen would be too small, i think something between 14.5-16 m (17 m with longer tail) would be acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 30, 2013 20:05:58 GMT 5
Footprints? Apatosaurus sized Ceratopsian?, Giant allosauroid being possible 2nd largest theropod after Spinosaurus?, Sauropod being over 200 ton? Not 100 % impossible, but sound pretty doubtful. Hmmm i feel that based on footprints it would overestimate animals size. There are many factors that change footprint's size and shape. Anyway 15 m T. rex is certainly very doubtful in my opinion. So is about 16+ metric ton bipedal Spinosaurus. Also Amphicoelias fragilimus may be fake, it would be just Cope's made up, who want to have advantage over Marsh. But i don't say this option is most likely about giant dorsal bone, it couldn't be 100 % ruled though. I am not Amphicoelias hater or biased towards very conservative estimates, but i am against experiments or methods that are biased towards hiper-liberal estimates. I accept that barely 13 m for largest known Spinosaurus specimen would be too small, i think something between 14.5-16 m (17 m with longer tail) would be acceptable. Entirely agreed. Except, is that suspicion of Cope having made up this against Marsh actually rumored ? |
|
