|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Dec 30, 2019 10:16:28 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. That's largely due to not fact checking yourself, and yes, it is backtracking. I didnt think i would have to feverously defend someones work, but jesus my guy. That thread is very cautious about assigning a definitive size to the pubis shaft animal. I dont know where you're quoting Spinodontosaurus from, as i dont see a deviantart associated with that name, so i assume you mean from that thread. anyway... I didnt know who he was, so i had to google him. Anyway, as the direct quote here shows, he doesn't show his work, but using the Giganotosaurus holotype GDI from franoys, you get a mass of length of 13.4m and 7524kg, just the basic maths: 12.2 * .10 =13.4 6840 * .10 = 7524 Moving on This is a pretty crippling line to your argument. Holtz lists all the larger theropod dinosaurs as ~12m and "elephant sized" in his theropod index, Mortimer states MPEF-PV 1157 to b "~12.2"m, not "12.2m+". This might seem pedantic, but it really just shows your carelessness to check what your sources actually say. Franoys estimates MPEF-PV 1157 to be 11.8m along the curves citing Canale (2014) for his reasoning as to why Tyrannotitan isn't as long as Giganotosaurus, i will have to look into this further to say anything more on it, but that is a difference of .4m in TBL, really not conservative. Additionally, since you want to quote the Carcharodontosaurid thread, An estimate of ~6700kg was given using Acrocanthosaurus, and an estimate of 6500kg was give by theropod using the Giganotosaurus holotype using a 1.43m femur; Franoys estimated MPEF-PV 1157 to be 6400kg, so you can see, that's not very conservative in comparison at all. Also, i don't know why Greg Paul gives weird numbers, but he does, using your logic, he is "very liberal" here. It also goes to show the differentiation in estimates with very fragmentary animals too. As my memory serves, the estimates of 13+m Carcharodontosaurus derive from using Acrocanthosaurus as a base, which, if i remember correctly, is probably unreliable, but i will have to read further into this. Moving on. The above paragraph, and my previous post on the Giganotosaurus holotype estimate, shows exactly where your point falls apart. Sure it does, it shows a pattern in your posting habits. Going back to your original comments, nothing is "set in stone", but a consensus or agreement still exists. Seen from my prior posts, Franoys' estimates are more in the ballpark of them, rather than the 13m+ ones. That doesn't make his estimates "conservative, either. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 30, 2019 18:51:47 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. 1: That's largely due to not fact checking yourself, and yes, it is backtracking. I didnt think i would have to feverously defend someones work, but jesus my guy. 2: That thread is very cautious about assigning a definitive size to the pubis shaft animal. I dont know where you're quoting Spinodontosaurus from, as i dont see a deviantart associated with that name, so i assume you mean from that thread. anyway... 3: I didnt know who he was, so i had to google him. Anyway, as the direct quote here shows, he doesn't show his work, but using the Giganotosaurus holotype GDI from franoys, you get a mass of length of 13.4m and 7524kg, just the basic maths: 12.2 * .10 =13.4 6840 * .10 = 7524 Moving on 4: This is a pretty crippling line to your argument. Holtz lists all the larger theropod dinosaurs as ~12m and "elephant sized" in his theropod index, Mortimer states MPEF-PV 1157 to b "~12.2"m, not "12.2m+". This might seem pedantic, but it really just shows your carelessness to check what your sources actually say. Franoys estimates MPEF-PV 1157 to be 11.8m along the curves citing Canale (2014) for his reasoning as to why Tyrannotitan isn't as long as Giganotosaurus, i will have to look into this further to say anything more on it, but that is a difference of .4m in TBL, really not conservative. Additionally, since you want to quote the Carcharodontosaurid thread, An estimate of ~6700kg was given using Acrocanthosaurus, and an estimate of 6500kg was give by theropod using the Giganotosaurus holotype using a 1.43m femur; Franoys estimated MPEF-PV 1157 to be 6400kg, so you can see, that's not very conservative in comparison at all. Also, i don't know why Greg Paul gives weird numbers, but he does, using your logic, he is "very liberal" here. It also goes to show the differentiation in estimates with very fragmentary animals too. 5: As my memory serves, the estimates of 13+m Carcharodontosaurus derive from using Acrocanthosaurus as a base, which, if i remember correctly, is probably unreliable, but i will have to read further into this. Moving on. 6: The above paragraph, and my previous post on the Giganotosaurus holotype estimate, shows exactly where your point falls apart. 7: Sure it does, it shows a pattern in your posting habits. Going back to your original comments, nothing is "set in stone", but a consensus or agreement still exists. Seen from my prior posts, Franoys' estimates are more in the ballpark of them, rather than the 13m+ ones. That doesn't make his estimates "conservative, either. 1: My original point still stands - Franoys' mass estimates are lower than some others. Because of this, they are conservative. Conservative is lower, relatively speaking, than other things. 2: Spinodontosaurus had made a size chart depicting the giant Mapu ( here). He also seems to favor it going by his mass estimate (>8 tonnes) 3: That is not how you scale 6840 times 1.1 times 1.1 times 1.1 = 9104.04 4: What you quoted there was a typo, sorry. I meant 'Plus Holtz and Mortimer favor 12.2' - neither goes above that. Tyrannotitan is also more heavily built than relatives, so while they may have incorrectly scaled, they did give lengths which when properly scaled give >7 tonnes. And Spinodontosaurus favors 7.2 tonnes. 5: Nope; you're thinking of 14-15 meters. AFAIK, ~13 meters comes from either using Hartman's Giganotosaurus as a proxy (Spinodontosaurus) or using the proportions of the neotype as well as several different carnosaurs (SpinoInWonderland) 6: ? 7: Nope. Really. The problem with the Triceratops GDI they were using was that there is absolutely no telling whatsoever what it's based on and its width is faaar to low |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Dec 30, 2019 23:33:04 GMT 5
1: That's largely due to not fact checking yourself, and yes, it is backtracking. I didnt think i would have to feverously defend someones work, but jesus my guy. 2: That thread is very cautious about assigning a definitive size to the pubis shaft animal. I dont know where you're quoting Spinodontosaurus from, as i dont see a deviantart associated with that name, so i assume you mean from that thread. anyway... 3: I didnt know who he was, so i had to google him. Anyway, as the direct quote here shows, he doesn't show his work, but using the Giganotosaurus holotype GDI from franoys, you get a mass of length of 13.4m and 7524kg, just the basic maths: 12.2 * .10 =13.4 6840 * .10 = 7524 Moving on 4: This is a pretty crippling line to your argument. Holtz lists all the larger theropod dinosaurs as ~12m and "elephant sized" in his theropod index, Mortimer states MPEF-PV 1157 to b "~12.2"m, not "12.2m+". This might seem pedantic, but it really just shows your carelessness to check what your sources actually say. Franoys estimates MPEF-PV 1157 to be 11.8m along the curves citing Canale (2014) for his reasoning as to why Tyrannotitan isn't as long as Giganotosaurus, i will have to look into this further to say anything more on it, but that is a difference of .4m in TBL, really not conservative. Additionally, since you want to quote the Carcharodontosaurid thread, An estimate of ~6700kg was given using Acrocanthosaurus, and an estimate of 6500kg was give by theropod using the Giganotosaurus holotype using a 1.43m femur; Franoys estimated MPEF-PV 1157 to be 6400kg, so you can see, that's not very conservative in comparison at all. Also, i don't know why Greg Paul gives weird numbers, but he does, using your logic, he is "very liberal" here. It also goes to show the differentiation in estimates with very fragmentary animals too. 5: As my memory serves, the estimates of 13+m Carcharodontosaurus derive from using Acrocanthosaurus as a base, which, if i remember correctly, is probably unreliable, but i will have to read further into this. Moving on. 6: The above paragraph, and my previous post on the Giganotosaurus holotype estimate, shows exactly where your point falls apart. 7: Sure it does, it shows a pattern in your posting habits. Going back to your original comments, nothing is "set in stone", but a consensus or agreement still exists. Seen from my prior posts, Franoys' estimates are more in the ballpark of them, rather than the 13m+ ones. That doesn't make his estimates "conservative, either. 1: My original point still stands - Franoys' mass estimates are lower than some others. Because of this, they are conservative. Conservative is lower, relatively speaking, than other things. 2: Spinodontosaurus had made a size chart depicting the giant Mapu ( here). He also seems to favor it going by his mass estimate (>8 tonnes) 3: That is not how you scale 6840 times 1.1 times 1.1 times 1.1 = 9104.04 4: What you quoted there was a typo, sorry. I meant 'Plus Holtz and Mortimer favor 12.2' - neither goes above that. Tyrannotitan is also more heavily built than relatives, so while they may have incorrectly scaled, they did give lengths which when properly scaled give >7 tonnes. And Spinodontosaurus favors 7.2 tonnes. 5: Nope; you're thinking of 14-15 meters. AFAIK, ~13 meters comes from either using Hartman's Giganotosaurus as a proxy (Spinodontosaurus) or using the proportions of the neotype as well as several different carnosaurs (SpinoInWonderland) 6: ? 7: Nope. Really. The problem with the Triceratops GDI they were using was that there is absolutely no telling whatsoever what it's based on and its width is faaar to low Do you really think saying "no, nope , no" is a proper rebuttal? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 30, 2019 23:37:04 GMT 5
"No, nope, nope" is not the rebuttal. It's merely post structure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Dec 31, 2019 0:30:24 GMT 5
We should move this to the Carcharodontosaurid thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Dec 31, 2019 0:32:36 GMT 5
If there's any more of it, not a bad idea
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 2, 2020 6:08:52 GMT 5
Nevermind i'm far too lazy for that.
Mate you literally posted a question mark in response to my statement.
Is not post structure, it is an unequivocally damning emphasis on the fact you aren't keeping up with what is being said.
Right, yeah....no. The fact that you can cherry pick out estimates from one or two deviant art users is not a good argument for him having "conservative" estimates. Also, this repetitive statement falls under Argumentum ad nauseum, so please try a proper reply this time.
Facts aren't really your thing, are they? In this chart He gives 13.6m in TBL and a mass range of 5000-8000kg, which Franoys estimate fits snugly into. Improper reply.
Mmmmmm even in this case, his numbers are still wrong.
I'm still reading the Osteology of Tyrannotitan so i can't really remark on this right now, but so far i don't see anything that would really disagree with a length of ~11.8m over the curves. again, that's ~0.4m, which could even be a standard deviation found in alot of journals. Your argument here is really not strong.
....except i'm not.
It would be wonderful if you paid close attention to what was being said. 13m+ estimates were made using Acrocanthosaurus as a base. This was especially the case when there were attempts (particularly broly) in estimating the size of Carcharodontosaurus) some time ago; to his own admission that was not great practice, and gave something like 14.5m, but he still uses Acrocanthosaurus, albeit to not such a severe degree, in his more recent reconstruction, in which he gets 13.2m, which may be a little over sized but thats fine.
Right, you can keep saying "no", all you want -- the fact remains that the pattern of your posting habits are made abundantly clear with posts like this.
inb4 "no"
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 2, 2020 8:04:43 GMT 5
^I'll have to respond to that a bit later; don't currently have the full energy to ATM
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 3, 2020 8:07:02 GMT 5
Nevermind i'm far too lazy for that. 1: Mate you literally posted a question mark in response to my statement. 2: Is not post structure, it is an unequivocally damning emphasis on the fact you aren't keeping up with what is being said. 3: Right, yeah....no. The fact that you can cherry pick out estimates from one or two deviant art users is not a good argument for him having "conservative" estimates. Also, this repetitive statement falls under Argumentum ad nauseum, so please try a proper reply this time. 4: Facts aren't really your thing, are they? In this chart He gives 13.6m in TBL and a mass range of 5000-8000kg, which Franoys estimate fits snugly into. Improper reply. 5: Mmmmmm even in this case, his numbers are still wrong. 6: I'm still reading the Osteology of Tyrannotitan so i can't really remark on this right now, but so far i don't see anything that would really disagree with a length of ~11.8m over the curves. again, that's ~0.4m, which could even be a standard deviation found in alot of journals. Your argument here is really not strong. 7: ....except i'm not. 8: It would be wonderful if you paid close attention to what was being said. 13m+ estimates were made using Acrocanthosaurus as a base. This was especially the case when there were attempts (particularly broly) in estimating the size of Carcharodontosaurus) some time ago; to his own admission that was not great practice, and gave something like 14.5m, but he still uses Acrocanthosaurus, albeit to not such a severe degree, in his more recent reconstruction, in which he gets 13.2m, which may be a little over sized but thats fine. 9: Right, you can keep saying "no", all you want -- the fact remains that the pattern of your posting habits are made abundantly clear with posts like this. inb4 "no" You can have the last word after this post if you want, as I am starting to get really sick, tired, and bored of quibbling over this continuously. 1: How I structure my post has nothing to do with what I replied to you with; there's a reason I put a question mark. What did you even mean? 2: Care to enlighten me, then? 3: It's not cherrypicking - many of Franoys' mass estimates are lower than lengthier (and thus more massive) ones otherwise estimated. 4: He got the LENGTH right. Ville Sinkkonen's Mapusaurus is actually quite a bit too thin. Using a more realistic skeletal gets an >8 tonne animal, like he estimated on here. 5: Why? 6: The length would depend on the proportions with which the final skeletal is restored. GSP probably got his Tyrannotitan, for instance, using his Giganotosaurus as a proportion basis. These things will vary from estimation to estimation. 7: What I meant by that is that Acrocanthosaurus had too small of a head to get a ~13 meter SGM DIN-1 with its proportions. 8: I know. He uses the scaled up proportions of the holotype as well as references from relatives such as Giganotosaurus to get his ~13.22 meter and ~9 tonne estimate 9: Meh, I can still get my points across. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 6, 2020 4:31:26 GMT 5
Nevermind i'm far too lazy for that. 1: Mate you literally posted a question mark in response to my statement. 2: Is not post structure, it is an unequivocally damning emphasis on the fact you aren't keeping up with what is being said. 3: Right, yeah....no. The fact that you can cherry pick out estimates from one or two deviant art users is not a good argument for him having "conservative" estimates. Also, this repetitive statement falls under Argumentum ad nauseum, so please try a proper reply this time. 4: Facts aren't really your thing, are they? In this chart He gives 13.6m in TBL and a mass range of 5000-8000kg, which Franoys estimate fits snugly into. Improper reply. 5: Mmmmmm even in this case, his numbers are still wrong. 6: I'm still reading the Osteology of Tyrannotitan so i can't really remark on this right now, but so far i don't see anything that would really disagree with a length of ~11.8m over the curves. again, that's ~0.4m, which could even be a standard deviation found in alot of journals. Your argument here is really not strong. 7: ....except i'm not. 8: It would be wonderful if you paid close attention to what was being said. 13m+ estimates were made using Acrocanthosaurus as a base. This was especially the case when there were attempts (particularly broly) in estimating the size of Carcharodontosaurus) some time ago; to his own admission that was not great practice, and gave something like 14.5m, but he still uses Acrocanthosaurus, albeit to not such a severe degree, in his more recent reconstruction, in which he gets 13.2m, which may be a little over sized but thats fine. 9: Right, you can keep saying "no", all you want -- the fact remains that the pattern of your posting habits are made abundantly clear with posts like this. inb4 "no" You can have the last word after this post if you want, as I am starting to get really sick, tired, and bored of quibbling over this continuously. 1: How I structure my post has nothing to do with what I replied to you with; there's a reason I put a question mark. What did you even mean? 2: Care to enlighten me, then? 3: It's not cherrypicking - many of Franoys' mass estimates are lower than lengthier (and thus more massive) ones otherwise estimated. 4: He got the LENGTH right. Ville Sinkkonen's Mapusaurus is actually quite a bit too thin. Using a more realistic skeletal gets an >8 tonne animal, like he estimated on here. 5: Why? 6: The length would depend on the proportions with which the final skeletal is restored. GSP probably got his Tyrannotitan, for instance, using his Giganotosaurus as a proportion basis. These things will vary from estimation to estimation. 7: What I meant by that is that Acrocanthosaurus had too small of a head to get a ~13 meter SGM DIN-1 with its proportions. 8: I know. He uses the scaled up proportions of the holotype as well as references from relatives such as Giganotosaurus to get his ~13.22 meter and ~9 tonne estimate 9: Meh, I can still get my points across. What point do you think you got across? You consistently failed to show any real momentum to your argument and flopped on nearly every attempt to form a coherent rebuttal, you claim that your post structure has nothing to do with what you say, but it does; your posts structure, or in your case lack thereof, is yet another damning emphasis on the fact that you fail to understand anything that doesn't agree with your apparent preconcieved notion(s). Pro tip: "?" is not post structure, nor are the words "no, nope, not really, or why?, especially in the case that they stand alone. All in all, i think this quote from Creature386 sums this up nicely " The action or practice of choosing and taking only the most beneficial from what is available"sure it is; not only did you participate in this, you consistently failed to bolster your argument with anything solid. I suppose, that can be exhausting, when you also just repeat yourself as well. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 6, 2020 17:14:40 GMT 5
On a similar note, FMNH PR 2081 vs MUCPv-Ch1 is a fairly popular comparison. I wonder why something like USNM 6183 or B-rex vs 8% larger MUCPv-95 isn't as popular?
|
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Jan 6, 2020 19:49:21 GMT 5
On a similar note, FMNH PR 2081 vs MUCPv-Ch1 is a fairly popular comparison. I wonder why something like USNM 6183 or B-rex vs 8% larger MUCPv-95 isn't as popular? You already know why because you were told today. As per usual you bring this stuff on the discard people then answer you then you ignore everything that is said to you and come here and post the same stuff. And you wonder why everyone on there does not take you seriously and says you are an AI. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 6, 2020 19:50:56 GMT 5
I meant it's a bit of a double standard. We didn't go over that yet as far as I have seen.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdangerousdinosaur on Jan 6, 2020 20:10:18 GMT 5
I meant it's a bit of a double standard. We didn't go over that yet as far as I have seen. But you will do ....then ignore all the feed back that is given to you because it does not go along with what you want. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 6, 2020 20:18:00 GMT 5
Not this rabbit hole again.
This is a double standard I refer to.
|
|
