|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Dec 23, 2019 0:32:01 GMT 5
Lol, no they aren't. Overestimations are corrected with some frequency over the years, whether they are in scientific journals or Blaze and/or Franoys on Deviant art.
Yeah mate they're taken into consideration because they aren't delusioned ramblings of someone on a forum. He puts the work into it and shows his work, you just sit here rambling. None of them are hyper conservative either, so i am really not sure what you're on about. Nothing is set in stone,and i doubt you could coherently explain what is wrong with the "hyper conservative" estimate either.
Its really not that at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 23, 2019 1:34:36 GMT 5
1: Lol, no they aren't. Overestimations are corrected with some frequency over the years, whether they are in scientific journals or Blaze and/or Franoys on Deviant art. 2: Yeah mate they're taken into consideration because they aren't delusioned ramblings of someone on a forum. He puts the work into it and shows his work, you just sit here rambling. None of them are hyper conservative either, so i am really not sure what you're on about. Nothing is set in stone,and i doubt you could coherently explain what is wrong with the "hyper conservative" estimate either. 3: Its really not that at all. 1: They are - a lot of people, from what I can tell, have only heard of Franoys' mass estimations and therefore do not realize that other good sources have higher results. 2: This is not delusional. I am taking into consideration stuff that people like Scott Hartman, SpinoInWonderland, Spinodontosaurus, Tom Holtz, Mickey Mortimer, and Greg Paul got, which just so happen to he higher than what Franoys got. There is nothing WRONG with the more conservative estimates nor the higher estimates, bit the problem lies in treating any of them as if they are set in stone. Just go with whatever floats your boat, but do not treat it as if it is the only good estimate or if it's set in stone. 3: They are, quite a bit. MUCPv-95, MCF-PVPH-108.145, SGM-DIN 1 and MPEF-PV 1157 all come to mind for relatively conservative estimates. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Dec 23, 2019 2:27:43 GMT 5
I'm really glad we don't use "what you see" as a factual basis then. Just because other sources yield higher results, doesn't make them better. Moreover just because you find more that yield a higher result, doesn't really make one other "conservative". Sure it is. See, when you say Hartman i'm very much convinced you did zero research before you just rambled on here. Hartmans' estimate for the mass of the Giganotosaurus holotype is almost identical to Franoys'. Even in their length estimates. That's just a nail in your coffin. We have an 8 page Carcharodontosaurid thread i really suggest you read before you reply again. theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/1090/carcharodontosaurid-discussion-thread |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 23, 2019 2:34:26 GMT 5
1: I'm really glad we don't use "what you see" as a factual basis then. Just because other sources yield higher results, doesn't make them better. Moreover just because you find more that yield a higher result, doesn't really make one other "conservative". 2: Sure it is. 3: See, when you say Hartman i'm very much convinced you did zero research before you just rambled on here. Hartmans' estimate for the mass of the Giganotosaurus holotype is almost identical to Franoys'. Even in their length estimates. That's just a nail in your coffin. 4: We have an 8 page Carcharodontosaurid thread i really suggest you read before you reply again. theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/1090/carcharodontosaurid-discussion-thread1: Conservative, relatively speaking, means lower. I could be incorrect, but Franoys' mass estimations are the lowest scientifically-backed ones I can find. Why wouldn't they be considered 'conservative', then? 2: How? 3: No, not the HOLOTYPE. Just about every GDI I know of for the Giganotosaurus holotype gives about 7 tonnes. I mean MUCPv-95. You'll notice each of those sources you linked goves differing estimations. Now it's very difficult to accurately predict MUCPv-95's size, but I would consider 7.3 tonnes more conservative than 8.2 4: I have read that thread, many, many, many times. A lot of the carnosaur length and weight figures in it are higher than what Franoys got. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Dec 23, 2019 3:08:37 GMT 5
So like i'm flattered you felt the need to spell out the context of what conservative meant in our conversation, but unfortunately it doesn't bolster what you're saying at all. As i already showed, and just like you conceded with this comment in your post:
His estimates are on par with what most show; show therefore which is it, are his estimates "conservative" or, verbatim, 'just like about every one you've seen'?
Franoys addressed this in his comment section - i am not surprised you neglected to look there for any pertinent criticism and information within it.
Oof, might want to check back in on it chief.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 23, 2019 3:51:46 GMT 5
1: Maybe I should have been more clear that I was referring to MUCPv-95 and not MUCPv-Ch1
2: yes, he acknowledges it, true. He just does not use it and is therefore erring on the lower side.
3: There are indeed higher mass estimates, like 8 plus tonnes mass for Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus for instance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Dec 23, 2019 4:27:56 GMT 5
1: Maybe I should have been more clear that I was referring to MUCPv-95 and not MUCPv-Ch1 2: yes, he acknowledges it, true. He just does not use it and is therefore erring on the lower side. Or maybe you should come up with a proper argument, thats a much better idea. This just shows me you don't understand the methodology at all. Do you think repeating one liners does your argument any more credibility or something? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 23, 2019 4:49:50 GMT 5
1: I don't see how this is a bad argument. It was that Franoys uses lower mass estimates for carnosaurs than most other people do, and I have not been disproven
2: I'm not sure what you mean by that; do you mean the degree of which MUCPv-95 is bigger than MUCPv-Ch1 and scale from that? That, I understand.
3: You might have misunderstood my point a little bit. I meant that Franoys was conservative because their mass estimates for those specimens are lower than those others have obtained.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Dec 23, 2019 6:29:34 GMT 5
....meanwhile his estimate with the Giganotosaurus holotype being in line with other GDI's(Your own admission,verbatim)directly disproves it. If you're going to say he uses lower estimates, you should probably provide substance to the claim instead of repeating yourself consistently. But good job pal. You can maybe come back to this discussion when you can understand that bit.
Across the board you have shown that you don't understand most of it, and thats fine.
I misunderstood nothing, but thank you for playing.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 23, 2019 15:08:39 GMT 5
1: Maybe I should have phrased my post better. He isn't necessarily conservative with 100% of them, but a good bit of them he is.
2: You're going to have to explain to me what you mean by that because I am understanding it less and less every time you say that.
3: Again, I don't understand what you mean by that,
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 24, 2019 16:44:50 GMT 5
smedzHere you go: Mapusaurus Siats Deinonychus Utahraptor Aerosteon Daspletosaurus Deinocheirus Deltadromeus Rajasaurus Oxalaia
|
|
smedz
Junior Member
Posts: 195 
|
Post by smedz on Dec 24, 2019 19:09:36 GMT 5
smedz Here you go: Mapusaurus Siats Deinonychus Utahraptor Aerosteon Daspletosaurus Deinocheirus Deltadromeus Rajasaurus Oxalaia Thanks dude, perhaps we should make a separate thread for Matoria? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 24, 2019 19:11:18 GMT 5
smedz Here you go: Mapusaurus Siats Deinonychus Utahraptor Aerosteon Daspletosaurus Deinocheirus Deltadromeus Rajasaurus Oxalaia Thanks dude, perhaps we should make a separate thread for Matoria? Don't see why not. When there is one, I'll post my input there. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Dec 29, 2019 9:06:03 GMT 5
1: Maybe I should have phrased my post better. He isn't necessarily conservative with 100% of them, but a good bit of them he is. 2: You're going to have to explain to me what you mean by that because I am understanding it less and less every time you say that. 3: Again, I don't understand what you mean by that, Oh, I see, now you're just backpedaling on your absurdity. "hes extremely conservative with giant carnosaurs" → "well maybe he isn't 'extremely conservative with his estimates' → "well other people get higher numbers thus his are conservative" → "well his estimates for the giganotosaurus holotype was on par with others but not for the super fragmentary paratype" The thought process you have here is seriously bizarre. The fact of the matter is that because one or two other people have come up with really high(flawed) numbers, doesn't mean his are "low" or "conservative". From what i can tell, his estimates are extremely similar to most others you can find readily online that aren't heavily flawed. I do see that you have a major struggle accepting something like this though, like your latest comment about the saurian server. I'm not even remotely surprised. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 29, 2019 17:13:06 GMT 5
It's not backtracking. I may have just stated my opinion incorrectly.
And these higher estimations aren't baseless either - reliable sources have them. For MCF-PVPH-108.145, Spinodontosaurus, NamDaoTetanurae, and I think most of the carnosaur discussion thread favor 13.6 meters, for MPEF-PV 1157, Greg Paul favors 13, Holtz and Mortimer favor 12.2 plus, as does most of that carnosaur thread. For SGM-DIN 1, SpinoInWonderland, Spinodontosaurus, and the thread all favor 13 plus meters, and MUCPv-95 is anyone's guess but it's not the highest estimate out there. Besides, I think my point still at least partially stands - these are higher than what Franoys gives, therefore Franoys' estimates are conservative in relation to them.
As for the thing about the Saurian server, that has nothing to do with this. The issue with the Saurian server is that they are relying on a severely undersized and probably poorly made Triceratops GDI.
|
|
