A New Spinosaurus hypothesis is swimming around

You heard it fellas, there is a circulating hypothesis for how Spinosaurus could've hunted fish like a Shearwater by diving and not a shoreline hunter like a Heron.

The basic premise of this hypothesis is that Spinosaurus was a slow surface swimming ambush predator that would swim slowly and upon sensing fish underwater and It would use it's weight to dive bomb upon the fish but get this: It uses it's sail to intentionally create drag to control it's momentum underwater and reduce oscillation for more precise and accurate snatching of fish.

This is one of the few hypothesis that actually explains what every part of Spinosaurus does without contradicting or just assuming something is for display. For me, what makes me convinced is the fact it doesn't contradict the recent paper published on Spinosaurus, In fact it embraced it by using the supposed drag the sail creates to It's advantage.

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Spinofagrus
    Who gives a flyjng fuck? Biggest meme creature in paleontology since fucking Iguanodon

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Replies: 78
    >Posters: 8
    dino threads may be the most cursed stuff on Wauf

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      better than 36 threads and one poster

      this bullshit is chemo to kill a paleoschizo

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Literally because of one poster. He defends "THE SCIENCE!!", believes everything reddit believes and gets red hot pissed if you disagree with him. He also believes anyone that disagrees with him is the same person.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you seem to spend a lot of time on reddit learning what they think. Maybe you should go back.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don't lie OP

    you made up this "hypothesis"
    nobody else would misunderstand papers like that.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I've come up with this new hypothesis that's a slight modification of someone else's old hypothesis
    Yeah buddy. They spent years working on their hypothesis, I guarantee they've already thought of your idea and rejected it for some reason. If you're a bright lad and read their paper you can probably even find out why they didn't go with your idea.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not that I would ever steal your spinosaurus hypothesis for the reasons already mentioned.

    they don't disagree with a shit paper, and that's not a good sign.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is why before you do any science you need to spend years studying all the science you're basing it on.

      you need to be educated enough to spot bad science, and practiced enough to spot it almost instantly. All science has problems, and you need to be able to read it, see the problems, and decide if they disqualify the entire work or if they can be corrected.

      you don't get second chances, you get to publish and maybe defend your work once or twice. After that it goes into the trash.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >they don't disagree with a shit paper,
      as to why it's a shit paper, OP already knows.

      Paleontologists realize that almost every vertebrate CAN swim. An animal that just can't swim is a dead animal. So if the paper concludes that Spinosaurus was a poor swimmer while their models appear to indicate that it couldn't swim at all, that's a problem. It's a problem with conclusions agreeing with experiments, and it's also a problem with experiments agreeing with reality.

      both are fatal problems. No matter what the authors may try to say about them.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >No matter what the authors may try to say about them.
        you don't actually get to explain in science why your conclusions don't agree with the results of your experiments. That's not how it works. And that's also why we read the experiments and not necessarily the conclusions.

        if the experiments can't tell their own story, you're getting the story wrong.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Criticizing paleontology in particular requires knowing which areas of conjecture are most likely to be shit.

          For example, behavior, superficial appearance, and sometimes ecology and physiology tend to be difficult or impossible to derive from rocks.

          so these topics are very likely to produce shit papers. Interestingly enough, they are also the only topics Wauf is interested in because hard science takes years of study to understand and discuss. So we have a bias here strongly favoring shit science, simply because it's the only science OP comes close to understanding. And even then he usually fucks up.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            because of this bias, I can know without even looking on the board that if a topic is being discussed here, it is almost certainly shit science.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I know most of this is just pure undiluted autism doing its work but continue on

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I have to go eat and get laid, but I'll probably think of some more criticisms of OP mid-gustation or coitus.
      Maybe even both.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      an explanation was requested, and it is being given. I can go for weeks, as you already know. There's a lot to unpack here.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There's a lot to unpack here.
        How the paleoschizo thinks is a complex topic, and not necessarily a logical one.
        Luckily he loves to bless us with his "hypotheses" granting a glimpse at least into the mess that is the autistic/schizophrenic mind.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        that was more so a swathe of insults that consist of word "retard" and "schizophrenic" but ok.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I can understand that a retarded person or a schizophrenic person might see their diagnosis as an insult, but it's no more an insult than "cancer patient" or "person who got run over by a bus."

          particularly since cancer patients know they have cancer and it's hard to deny being run over by a bus, but our resident schizo retard spends all day every day denying the pieces he is very obviously missing.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's like if a quadriplegic wanted to compete in the olympics as a runner. Telling them they're quadriplegic isn't an insult, and them denying that they're quadriplegic doesn't change anything.

          The paleoschizo needs some Special Olympics for retarded scientists. He'd probably do really well. And perhaps Wauf is the place where literal retards can pretend to be scientists, I don't know.
          But that's a waste of his actual talents, which could well be put to much better use doing real science if he ever decides what he's doing right now is retarded.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If he wants to do some real science he could just begin by asking about the recent spinosaurus paper:
            1. what are the assumptions underpinning the calculations?
            2. are these assumptions correct?
            3. if the assumptions are incorrect, how does that affect the conclusions drawn?

            answering those three questions fast enough is sufficient to get him published in a journal of science, but it's a race against everyone else that might seek to get the same publication.

            it is likely someone else has already done this, but the exercise would be worth it for next time.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              If you base your "research" on a single bad paper, your "research" goes right into the trash when that paper does.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                OP should be aware of this, because once a long time ago he wanted to base some research on another bad paper.
                >http://www.arca.museus.ul.pt/ArcaSite/obj/gaia/MNHNL-0000784-MG-DOC-web.PDF

                this paper itself was based on terrible work done by Gilmore, Paul, and Bakker. So when their work was tossed in the trash, that paper went right along with it. OP's "hypothesis" is equally poorly founded. Because he made the mistake of not checking the science he wanted to build on.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                There is no real point in discussing a "hypothesis" that's based on bad science.

                it's basically just fanfiction. Not science at all.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                and to be fair, good science almost never gets any press.

                so OP is likely to only hear of bad science.
                Good science for the most part never enters a conversation on Wauf Wauf because it rarely makes it into the popsci realm that anons are familiar with.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                so in short and to sum up,

                OP the paleoschizo's mistake was NOT contradicting the most recent spinosaurus paper, since it is almost certainly a pile of shit.

                that should've been clear when the authors had to "walk back" their conclusions because "retards" were misunderstanding them. Some of those "retards" aren't retards at all, so that's a problem.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Even if the newest paper debunks older papers, that does NOT mean the conclusions are necessarily correct. There are far more possibilities than just Spinosaurus was or was not a strong swimmer. That's a false dichotomy, and hardly worth considering.

                Nor is the newest idea necessarily any good just because it's new. Science seeks to advance knowledge but it often fails, and even when advancing it's never complete. It is never completely right, even if it's more right than before.

                these are things any scientist knows because it is the most basic part of their job to know them.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                conversely even if the paper is a steaming pile of shit that doesn't necessarily mean the conclusions are wrong. There's several possible reasons bad science could come to good conclusions.
                The problem is if the paper is shit, we can't know if the conclusions are good or not.

                https://i.imgur.com/PMJI52q.png

                You heard it fellas, there is a circulating hypothesis for how Spinosaurus could've hunted fish like a Shearwater by diving and not a shoreline hunter like a Heron.

                The basic premise of this hypothesis is that Spinosaurus was a slow surface swimming ambush predator that would swim slowly and upon sensing fish underwater and It would use it's weight to dive bomb upon the fish but get this: It uses it's sail to intentionally create drag to control it's momentum underwater and reduce oscillation for more precise and accurate snatching of fish.

                This is one of the few hypothesis that actually explains what every part of Spinosaurus does without contradicting or just assuming something is for display. For me, what makes me convinced is the fact it doesn't contradict the recent paper published on Spinosaurus, In fact it embraced it by using the supposed drag the sail creates to It's advantage.

                It's illegal for copyright reasons to discuss an actual scientific hypothesis on the internet before it's published. Doing that means it probably can't ever be published

                so you didn't hear a hypothesis, you just heard some fanboy riffing on actual science. Or you made it up yourself and don't want to be mocked if it turns out to be stupid.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >you didn't hear a hypothesis, you just heard some fanboy riffing on actual science. Or you made it up yourself and don't want to be mocked if it turns out to be stupid.
                and in fact your hypothesis itself may be pure genius. But it's still going to get 86'd if you base it on junk science. That's what happened to this guy:

                https://i.imgur.com/WaZdRDL.png

                OP should be aware of this, because once a long time ago he wanted to base some research on another bad paper.
                >http://www.arca.museus.ul.pt/ArcaSite/obj/gaia/MNHNL-0000784-MG-DOC-web.PDF

                this paper itself was based on terrible work done by Gilmore, Paul, and Bakker. So when their work was tossed in the trash, that paper went right along with it. OP's "hypothesis" is equally poorly founded. Because he made the mistake of not checking the science he wanted to build on.

                the paper was genius, but it was based on shit science so it got tossed.

                Spinosaurus itself may be junk science, and it's possible someone is digging a fossil at this very moment that disproves all modern science regarding the animal. But we won't hear about that for years. If they die (as sometimes happens to brilliant scientists) we may never hear about it. Only scientists will know what's true and what's crap, because the truth never got published. It happens sometimes.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                but on the flip side,
                as mentioned
                even if your hypothesis is great, sharing it here may very well mean it can't be published. Or someone else who is certainly not a published dinosaur paleontologist could just steal it and publish it themselves. That also happens a lot.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      pull up a chair, or a teapot. Or a teapot chair

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    all the big dinosaurs ran around in the water
    I don't know how you can look reconstructions of them and not see it

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think their sail was purely sexual. Like a peacock's plumage.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if you want a good hypothesis about spino,
      this

      ironically enough isn't bad.

      it would appear to leave the animal dragging its tail like it was wearing a life vest, but at least it would solve the buoyancy vs center of gravity problem.
      It looks stupid, but it might actually work.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >For me, what makes me convinced is the fact it doesn't contradict the recent paper published on Spinosaurus
    you didn't understand the paper
    that's funny

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >"Hahaha the paper said Spino couldn't swi-"

      That wasn't the point of the paper dumbass. It debunked the theory it was a good swimmer/pursuit predator which he indeed wasn't. Even the authors are trying to damage control because retards like you are thinking that Spinosaurus wasn't even capable of swimming like a normal fucking animal.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you didn't understand the paper
        that's funny

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you didn't understand the paper
      that's funny

      >A predominantly fish-eating diet was envisioned for the sail-backed theropod dinosaur Spinosaurus aegyptiacus when its elongate jaws with subconical teeth were unearthed a century ago in Egypt. Recent discovery of the high-spined tail of that skeleton, however, led to a bolder conjecture that S. aegyptiacus was the first fully aquatic dinosaur. The ‘aquatic hypothesis’ posits that S. aegyptiacus was a slow quadruped on land but a capable pursuit predator in coastal waters, powered by an expanded tail. We test these functional claims with skeletal and flesh models of S. aegyptiacus. We assembled a CT-based skeletal reconstruction based on the fossils, to which we added internal air and muscle to create a posable flesh model. That model shows that on land S. aegyptiacus was bipedal and in deep water was an unstable, slow-surface swimmer (<1 m/s) too buoyant to dive.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yep.

        you think the author's conclusions matter because you don't understand their math or the assumptions it's based on.

        that's funny stuff.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Scientists don't care about other scientists' conclusions, right?

            we read the materials, methods, data, and calculations. Then we draw our own conclusions. Only after that's done will we maybe read the conclusions of the authors.

            That's how you blind test a paper for reproducibility. Because if I don't agree with your conclusions right off the bat, reproducing your experiment will produce a different outcome and we have a replication problem.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Another of one of those nonsensical schizofags.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's a process every scientist knows because one of our jobs moving up the ladder is grading student's papers. And that's how we do it. We don't read conclusions, just the actual science bits.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you didn't understand the paper
      that's funny

      Yep.

      you think the author's conclusions matter because you don't understand their math or the assumptions it's based on.

      that's funny stuff.

      Scientists don't care about other scientists' conclusions, right?

      we read the materials, methods, data, and calculations. Then we draw our own conclusions. Only after that's done will we maybe read the conclusions of the authors.

      That's how you blind test a paper for reproducibility. Because if I don't agree with your conclusions right off the bat, reproducing your experiment will produce a different outcome and we have a replication problem.

      It's a process every scientist knows because one of our jobs moving up the ladder is grading student's papers. And that's how we do it. We don't read conclusions, just the actual science bits.

      >Reddit spaces
      >Far up his ass for no reason
      >Claims to be a scientist

      Either you’re the most batshit insane troll or the most pathetic redditor I’ve come across.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        just because you can't understand something doesn't automatically make it wrong.

        it could just mean you're retarded.
        Schizophrenic people can't admit they might be wrong though. That would really break their mind even worse than it already is.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          While schizophrenic people generally understand that they think DIFFERRENTLY from other people, they usually believe they're misunderstood geniuses while everyone else is dumb.

          in reality you suffer from severe cognitive deficits, which almost all of you are incapable of identifying. The ultimate dunning kruger, where you're completely retarded but think you're a genius.

          antipsychotics don't fix this problem because while they may remove delusions and hallucinations, they don't remedy the disordered thought and most of the apophenia arising from the condition. You go on believing you're a misunderstood genius while everyone around you quickly realizes you're retarded.
          Or you know, just insane.

          Damn you must be fun at parties or friendly meetings.
          Acting all superior and mighty, I assume your passive aggression attracts a lot of girls in your job now does it? You know, spewing random shit grammatically doesn't make you smart, mister science man, it makes you sound like a inept. I am pointing this out because you most likely have severe case of autism with how you take spaces and how you're so confident of being the smarter guy, which is why I am taking you a bit more lightly. Saying random science words don't make you smarter and certainly not in this case where you, who barely even talked to anyone, started asserting yourself to everyone and started calling people schizophrenic and retarded (which mind you, you haven't even properly used the terms). That's a severe case of narcissism and egoism from your part, and the things said are such an inconvenience to me because I know what those words mean, I know what you're even typing in a sentence. Me suffering from Schizophrenia wouldn't be able to type coherently and I would always change subject and If I was clinically retarded I would barely be literate.

          All in all, I could've just wrote "You're a fucking Idiot" but because you're telling us your science degree in Turd eating I'd make this reply so we can relate to each other.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Me suffering from Schizophrenia wouldn't be able to type coherently
            the condition varies from fairly functional to completely incapacitated, and every point between.

            you do change the subject constantly, and your thoughts show an inability to focus to the conclusion of an idea. You also cannot follow other people's lines of thought.

            I am very good looking and moderately wealthy, which tends to make up for my autism when it comes to women. Men tend to find me charming if a bit odd.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Not that anon you're replying to, but...
              >"you do change the subject constantly, and your thoughts show an inability to focus to the conclusion of an idea."
              In this short thread you managed to change subjects at least five times. Did you even know this was a spinosaurus related thread?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Did you even know this was a spinosaurus related thread?
                it is not

                it is OP's misunderstanding of a paper that he didn't read about Spinosaurus thread.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Then what makes OP so wrong about the paper then?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I've already explained and you seem to have disregarded the explanation.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No? You just disregarded the theory entirely instead of tackling the actual posts problems which you entirely ignored.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                it's not a theory, it's a hypothesis
                and it's a very shoddy one because the data listed to support it would appear to disqualify it instead.

                If OP posts a thread saying the sky is red, does he want to argue about the color of the sky or does he want to discuss his colorblindness?

                >does he want to argue about the color of the sky or does he want to discuss his colorblindness?
                ultimately it doesn't matter since the one topic invariably leads to the other. Which was OP's goal.
                Either to find other colorblind people to agree with him, or to understand what colors look like to people that can actually see them.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're still very much avoiding my question.
                Care to Elaborate on why OP is wrong?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Care to Elaborate on why OP is wrong?
                I already did.

                your failure to understand is not my failure to elaborate.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No you didn't fucking elaborate man.
                What you basically did is disregard his hypothesis or theory or whatever is called by saying you "scientists" gather methods, data, calculations, etc. and say then you add it to your conclusions for a hypothesis.

                I mean, lets take this

                If OP posts a thread saying the sky is red, does he want to argue about the color of the sky or does he want to discuss his colorblindness?

                for a example. Instead of disregarding the question entirely, you can just point to the fucking sky to disprove it. Same here, disprove OP with actual words.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >and say then you add it to your conclusions for a hypothesis.
                incorrect.
                we use it to either disprove or not disprove someone else's hypothesis.

                did you graduate high school?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you trying to be a wannabe scientist or what? You're not answering my question you're genuinely being a fucking annoyance, tell me what OP has wrong.

                That's literally all I'm asking for you to do.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Last time I disproved one of OP's retarded hypotheses I went well over a hundred posts doing it.

                is that what you want? Turn your thread into a 150 post explanation of exactly why you're retarded?

                [...]

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Do you just call people retarded when they ask you something?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                only one person, because "he" is actually retarded.

                also something you already know.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I use it loosely to describe the narrow and misplaced focus arising from your autism combined with the disturbances to though that are presumably based in schizophrenia.

                the funny part is he believes Wauf is stuffed full of people with the same disabilities, while I know we have about 30 users a day here and he's the only one that's obviously retarded.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                autism by itself is a diagnosed learning disability presenting in infancy. I.e. "retardation."
                It may present as cognitive deficits, social deficits, or both.

                on top of this literal retardation the anon appears to have severe mental deficits arising from presumably schizophrenia. Disordered thought being the primary one.

                either way his vocabulary is college leve, his comprehension at kindergarten level, and his ability to solve problems is somewhere below a macaque.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I'm kinda sad you haven't realized this is Paleoschizo's younger and more autistic brother, Scienceschizo. Just don't reply to him, he'll go away.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                OP is paleoschizo, as "both" of you already know.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If OP posts a thread saying the sky is red, does he want to argue about the color of the sky or does he want to discuss his colorblindness?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >claims to be a paleontologist
              >moderately wealthy
              Kek

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you about have to be wealthy to do paleontology, it certainly doesn't pay much.

                https://i.imgur.com/ba2JDfX.png

                the paleoschizo's autism is of the "idiot-savant" type. He has a near eidetic memory for jargon and terms. He also memorizes conclusions of science readily enough. But he has no context to understand this information, and struggles to know what to do with it.

                OP is an example of this. OP seeks to apply the conclusions of other scientists and build upon them without actually understanding the underlying basis of those conclusions. In short he wants the recognition that goes with doing science, but is incapable of the actual work. Not just incapable, but also completely disinterested in it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Not just incapable, but also completely disinterested in it.
                incidentally, this is how I feel about interior decorating. I am incapable of it, and completely disinterested.

                However I'm not on an interior decorating website pretending to be an interior decorator while talking to actual interior decorators. That would be retarded.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't blame him for assuming you're a schizo
            everyone on here is a schizo except me

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You're a schizo, I'm the only person here who is not.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You're a schizo, I'm the only person here who is not.

              You're both wrong, I AM the only person without schizophrenia

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                true, you are a teapot and teapots are rarely schizophrenic.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you didn't understand the paper
      that's funny

      thats just your delusion. cute laugh btw.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        While schizophrenic people generally understand that they think DIFFERRENTLY from other people, they usually believe they're misunderstood geniuses while everyone else is dumb.

        in reality you suffer from severe cognitive deficits, which almost all of you are incapable of identifying. The ultimate dunning kruger, where you're completely retarded but think you're a genius.

        antipsychotics don't fix this problem because while they may remove delusions and hallucinations, they don't remedy the disordered thought and most of the apophenia arising from the condition. You go on believing you're a misunderstood genius while everyone around you quickly realizes you're retarded.
        Or you know, just insane.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Stop talking to yourself moron

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm talking to you

            you are insane, and part of your insanity is that you don't believe yourself to be insane.

            it's really a lovely condition, since normal people spend much of their lives worrying they might be stupid or crazy.
            you never have that problem.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              My guy you should check yourself to a doctor because I wasn’t even the guy you’re replying to.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *