I hate the current trend of paleozoology is to depict animals with wildly speculative and outlandish designs.
'Well soft tissue doesn't preserve and...and...' don't tell me this, I learned this firsthand from your mother.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Can someone point me in the direction of the studies or finds that confirmed pterosaurs had a fuzzy covering?
There are several that claim it. But what you should be wondering about is the one that refutes it.
?list=LL&t=1124
I mean yeah I’ll have a look at the dissenting opinions, but since work hasn’t sped up and you aren’t supplying what I asked for, I’m going to go find the claims and make a new thread to discuss what I find later, pro and con
Most small theropods were feathered, though large ones lost them consistently, as should be expected
Most small ornithopods were feathered, though this was lost fairly early - before the marginocephalians and thyreophorans split from ornithopoda, it seems, with only perhaps marginocephalia preserving it in the form of quills on select lineages, and some late-surviving basal ornithopods, like Zalmoxes preserving them.
Sauropods lost them very early due to their predisposition for gigantism.
Most pterosaurs were covered in filaments.
It is possible that non-ornithodiran archosaurs were also feathered due to suggestions from genetic comparisons pointing that crocodylomorph scutes are derived from filamentous coverings.
I'm not even sure it's MOST small theropods. I guess you'd have to count them all up and compare.
>Most small ornithopods were feathered
No ornithischians were feathered. See:
Sauropods never had feathers.
The direct ancestors and earliest dinosaurs such as Silesaurids and Aphanosaurs ALSO didn't have feathers.
Pterosaurs may also not have had ANY fuzzy covering.
Ornithodira is bullshit. Pterosaurs are very obviously not closely related to dinosaurs if you actually look at their anatomy and stop trying to cram them into "feathered animals".
Has you there, gay.
Reading, learning and critically analyzing is DEFINITELY science, unfortunately it' s nearly a dead component of modern soience.
>Ornithodira is bullshit. Pterosaurs are very obviously not closely related to dinosaurs if you actually look at their anatomy and stop trying to cram them into "feathered animals".
Where would you place Pterosaurs? I'm not convinced by the scleromochlus argument but I don't really know of any good alternatives.
David Peters-senpai?? I-is that you???
no, I just think it's dumb that an animal that hops and has tiny front legs would become an animal that launches by using strong front legs and barely uses its hind legs. It doesn't make sense. I think it's paleontologists trying to pigeonhole Pterosaurs into an existing line for the purpose of making a cohesive picture but that ignores that it's entirely reasonable to say that we're not sure at all where they come from. Compare to bats: We don't have any good lineage that makes sense for them to be descended from from how quickly they adapted to flight, just like pterosaurs. That said, I do believe Pterosaurs are archosaurs unlike the other anon. Would be fun if they were drepanosaur-adjacent, though.
You want to know a little secret? Most early Pterosaur relatives have been extremely misrepresented in the literature. That's why everyone is so confused about the origins of the lineage. There are two features to keep in mind when viewing these suspected Pterosaur relatives:
1: Front and hind limbs about equal in dimensions, giving the overall impression of a flying squirrel or colugo
2: An odd dual row of osteoderms down the lower back
These two traits may sound odd to most people because they've never heard of them. However, observe. This is Scleromochlus from ~235–205 mya. The wide time frame is due to the site it was found in not being temporally well-constrained, but look at that higher number.
Now here is Ozimek. Something a lot of people don't know is that the author's measurements of the animals (there is more than one recovered) DO NOT MATCH the author's description of the animals' dimensions. The illustration shortens the forelimbs significantly for some bizarre reason, but the actual measurements taken reveal an animal very much like a flying squirrel. Ozimek is from ~230 mya.
Here's a close-up diagram of the legendary Sharovipteryx. Notice again, just like Scleromochlus, the dual row of osteoderms down the lower back. Pterosaurs appear to lose this trait pretty early on once they become "proper" Pterosaurs. But multiple early assumed ancestors have them. Also of note is that Scleromochlus has long hind legs because it's suspected of being an arboreal hopper and has no known modifications even for gliding yet, let alone flying. Sharovipteryx is from ~225 mya. An interesting feature of Sharovipteryx is that the forelimbs have always been missing or buried in the matrix and no CT scan has ever been performed on the specimen - most likely because it's Russian and anything from Russia is hard as frick to study. Don't get me started on that. But the important point here is that NOBODY KNOWS how long Sharovipteryx's front limbs actually are. The original authors just *assumed* it had little T. rex arms and everyone just copied that forever after. Kind of like how the original reconstruction of Euparkeria gives it a weird sandcrawler nose, which the fossil doesn't show and everyone has just repeated this endlessly for some reason. Sharovipteryx could have had fully formed wings for all we know. Every reconstruction of Sharovipteryx you've ever seen as a "delta flyer" is total made up bullshit. There is literally no evidence it actually looked like this.
Once you realize all this, you understand we have A LOT more information about the early evolution of Pterosaurs. And they seem to have evolved, like dinosaurs, pretty fast after the Permian extinction.
a few dinosaurs had feathers, most didnt. anybody covering a trex or especially pterosaurs in fluff is trying to be subversive for subversion's sake. but some smaller dinos did have some feathers. glad i could clear everything up for you morons.
pterosaurs covered in fluff is pretty sound to be honest, but mind that it's not supposed to be feathers, it's pycnofibers which basically is fur
>all these vertebrate paleoartists fighting over the same shit 24/7
>lol
>everyone tries to not want freaky abominations of some sort despite that being the best shit in nature
>lmao
this is why i will forever be a based invertgay
Have any good invert reference resources for laypeople? The meme going around lately about the flexibility and softness of the cuticle on Anomalocaris rather than the rigid-looking plating on most pics has me curious about learning more.
The true face of pteradactyls
I like Euparkeria, i think it deserves to have a good image of it posted instead of whatever that is
This shit tier paleo"art" is exactly like all the woke shit in pedowood. It is INTENDED to make people mad with how wrong it is. The correct response is what americans are already doing: the road to civil war, which the pedo-commie government will LOSE BADLY.
Dinosaurs and prehistory in general will always be a difficult topic to study. Millions of year have warped rocks that look like the bones that once were. Skeletons are often disarticulated and incomplete. Even worse than the actual job at hand is finding the money to do the fricking research. Try justifying an expensive expedition that at best will find you a new attraction for your museum, when looking at it from a cost benefit perspective. And you do, because you’re competing with other departments. This all combines into an environment rife with just lazy work and bullshit all over, with the scientists who give a shit left to look a plates and hope the material is accurately represented in these papers. I personally have been digging into some translated chinese papers, and they suck. They ignore the work done by foreigners and even ignore it when they do joint expeditions. This goes beyond language barriers. Then I look at something like the inflatable sacs on Dreadnaughtus, or the rex backing off because of the pterosaurs. Its infuriating because it is the same thing as jacking up the dilo from Jurassic park. Its not for accuracy, its for brand recognition and shock value. I hate it and I hate you
And people who don’t know any better will assume we do, and if they find out there is literally no evidence of these behaviours and in fact they are pure speculation they will no longer believe anything coming out of the field. Try to add prestige to our interest, don’t frick around like this unless you want people to call you moronic.
>if people realize everything we say is fake and gay then people will start thinking everything we say is fake and gay
Wow, mind blown.
And of course this is what is already happening. Which is why it is the job of any good paleontologist to try to check your peers when they step out of line. Unfortunately, the entire field is basically out of line at this point.
>shock value.
no one was shocked by any of those
While discussing the possible negative effects of rampant speculation without a basis in fact being presented as fact on the general population’s opinion of the field, you seem to have missed my point. Someone watching Prehistoric Planet without our obsession of the topic will take it as true. That same person with more interest into maybe cars or music will also be surprised by some of the “new” things they see. And if they then find out that no actually the experts were just making shit up that was feasible for a fun show they will throw the baby out with the bath water and take the field less seriously. The bone wars still gives creationists ammo to discredit the field. Lets not give them more so we can chase childish urges to make dinosaurs more cool or ornate or counter expectations or whatever
>We, I mean, creationists
Creationists were already refuted by geology, you fricking crypto-creationist israelite.
Dinosaurs are not the only fossils that refute genesis either.
In fact, the earth being round refutes the bible. The all knowing god got the whole planet wrong? Surely it's a metaphor! And so is the law against bestiality, because horses are too pretty to be "beasts", right? Metaphor and reinterpretation lets you do anything you want!
The bible is a book of man. The church is a house of man. Your "god" was made up by schizophrenic israelites that burned psychoactive MARIJUANA as temple incense and got high for prayer. Your "christ" poured oil boiled with cannabis in it onto people to get them high before preaching. The modern form of your religion was invented by mentally impaired romans who drank wine from lead because it came to them in a dream. Guess which drug correlates with schizophrenia, and what other substances correlate with lowered IQs?
You follow a drug cult that undershot the age of the earth by over four billion years and actively encourages cutting off parts of dicks and using rape as a form of marriage.
It's like unironically being a shroom addled nordic pagan but a superior race hasn't told you to stop being moronic - yet (China is still in the planning phase).
I am not a creationist, I am aware of the wealth of the fossil record. I don’t believe in God or even an immortal soul which so many non-religious people still cling to. You are lashing out wildly because you don’t know how to discuss this topic. I also really liked prehistoric planet, it is the best dino doc to come out since the walking with series, and it looks incredible. I was successfully able to rope some friends into watching the whole series with me, and guess what, the people who didn’t know that much about prehistory would ask “did they really have those?” Or “is that real?”. And when I had to say “there is literally no way to know this because we don’t have evidence for it” they move on to talking about how good the show looked. Maybe if you talked to more people outside out your online groups about it you would find other opinions.
Prehistoric Planet had some of the hottest trendiest moron paleontologists as consultants. You don't get to claim that pop sci bullshit isn't cultivated by mainstream scientists because it fricking is. Brian engh's work appears in MULTIPLE museums. Or are museums no longer scientific institutions?
>judging science by how it chooses to market itself to children and moronic adults.
scientists are pragmatic. We know you're not that bright.
Scientists are often emotionally immature too, I’m sure you fit right in.
I was speaking of mental moronation, not emotional.
a mental moron is not going to be a scientists, but will often share the same interests as scientists. Paleoschizo is an excellent example of this. He's very interested in paleontology, but he is moronic. Most adults that are very interested in paleontology are moronic.
Uh oh, someone’s reading comprehension is falling behind.
>my words can only be interpreted one way, and that's the way I intended them
morons often fail to understand the complexity of thought of others.
>judging science by how it chooses to market itself to children and moronic adults.
Absolutely. Why wouldn't you?
>scientists are pragmatic.
You mean they have no ethical or moral values. In other words, they're prostitutes. Yes, we know. It's exactly what's driving the replication crisis.
Brian engh is literal human garbage.
>Absolutely. Why wouldn't you?
a normal mind judges science by what it actually produces aside from entertainment.
a small mind seeks entertainment and then pretends to be a normal mind offended by it.
>my childrens cartoons aren't ACCURATE
No shit, stop watching cartoons if you want accuracy. If you can't stop watching cartoons stop pretending to have a normal mind.
>a normal mind judges science by what it actually produces aside from entertainment.
Pop sci is one of the things modern science produces. And it's shit.
>a small mind seeks entertainment and then pretends to be a normal mind
You mean like pop sci?
>No you can't be against it or you're a puritan
Shut up, woman.
>my childrens cartoons aren't ACCURATE
What in the frick are you even talking about? Too many years shilling for big pedo on Wauf?
He's an edgy gore-homosexual that's part of the literal movement to destroy paleontology with lies. Just throwing that out there.
>paleontology
you have no idea what paleontology is
you think it's dinosaur cartoons.
If you're looking for extra work, you could probably get paid by apple, if you aren't already. You already argue like every troon and woman on Wauf.
>NOOO YOU HAVE TO LIKE THIS THING!!!!
>But if you don't, it never mattered and it's just for children, silly boys teehee
>LITTLEFOOT IS RUINING SERIOUS PALEONTOLOGY GUIZ!
>Literally a dinosaur eating shit
Why are israelites so obsessed with fecal matter?
Eating shit is actually a pretty common behavior in animals. Many dinosaurs likely ate shit.
It is. It's also a very popular subject of argumentation for israelites.
What is the hate for Engh? What did I miss? Is it just his goofy paleo art or is there more?
yes, if you aren't satisfied with criticizing the cartoons he draws, by all means try to criticize him as a person.
I like how this passive aggressive answer doesn’t answer my question and makes you look like a bit of a goof. He gets hired to make paleo-art because he’s a good artist and has his own passion for the field, so pretending his art is “just cartoons” is obviously not being honest. For real though what else has he done? (If anything I guess)
>so pretending his art is “just cartoons” is obviously not being honest.
neither is pretending it's peer refereed and published science.
it is entertainment mostly. Like cartoons.
sometimes it's illustration, which requires about the same level of rigor as cartoons.
Jurassic Park is entertainment for it’s own sake. Prehistoric Planet is supposed to be science communication, a combination of the new discoveries and the improvements of our ability to recreate the past. Going back to Brian Engh, he doesn’t just do digital art, and if he is hired to make a full sized model of dilophosaurus after its re-description it’s a lot harder to hide behind this label of “cartoon” you are latching onto. I personally thought he did a great job on that project, but it’s an example that would conflict with your claim that non of these creative choices could muddy the waters of what we actually have.
>Prehistoric Planet is supposed to be science communication, a combination of the new discoveries and the improvements of our ability to recreate the past.
yes and OP still failed to grasp what was being communicated despite them doing a fantastic job of shoving it right in his face.
I guess I’m not sure if you are the same guy I was replying to, but shifting goal posts isn’t very cool
there are no goal posts here. What, you think we hand out prizes at the end of the thread or something?
there's nothing to win, no rules, no goals.
All prehistoric planet communicated was that the morons are in control of paleontology now, and this was their chance to finally strut their downie stuff. And they did, in abundance. Every episode of peepee has scientific accuracy, and more importantly at least one dead baby dinosaur. Back when it first came out I was making lists of all the scientific inaccuracies per episode and it was ALWAYS more than one. There is absolutely NOTHING new presented in pp, except maybe trying to convince people that Dromaeosaurs fluttered down mountains. Everything else was goofy speculation that's already been made fun of for years. But the most damaging part was how strongly apple troons shilled it everywhere online and how hard EVERYONE online supports the piece of shit. This is actual, literal disinformation that has now infected and poisoned an entire generation on the subject of dinosaurs. But scientists "didn't do it" for some reason.
>I said it's aimed directly at children and moronic adults.
What a fricking stupid argument. Well guess what the majority are, moron?
I get prizes at the end of the thread.
>your claim that non of these creative choices could muddy the waters of what we actually have.
when did I claim that?
I said it's aimed directly at children and moronic adults.
children and moronic adults can't tell entertainment from science, and no attempt is made to distinguish it for them. Because they can't distinguish it. That's why this thread and thousands like it have been posted here over and over and over and over and over and over....
>he’s a good artist
First of all THIS is offensive. You have shit taste, twat. Engh was never a good artist. His style is unfinished and rough. But now he's also a shitty artist that puts dead baby dinosaurs and exposed intestines in everything. And that's before his wildly inaccurate dinosaur depictions enter the mix.
Oh please shut the frick up, woman. You are here 24/7 for years and you've never made a good post. That's how I know you're a canadian.
First of all, Dilophosaurus doesn't have feathers. Second, people keep bringing up Jurassic Park, but what they continuously forget is that that is APEX paleoart. Jurassic Park is literally the peak of anatomical rigor before everyone started tarring and feathering dinosaurs and putting balloons on their asses like baboons. Jurassic Park to this day is more accurate than prehistoric planet, which is wildly speculative and just plain wrong on basic facts. People keep pointing to shit like the Dilophosaurus frill to try to poopoo JP's scientific accuracy. These idiots have never read the book. If they HAD, they would know that Crichton added those details for moral reasons. They were meant to enhance the view that mankind was fricking with forces he didn't understand like being surprised that Dilophosaurs could blind you with venom. There are a few other details that are inaccurate like the Brachiosaurs chewing, but literally no scientist thought they did that and that was a case of executive meddling to make them more cowlike.
Man I like a lot of Brian Engh’s work, his dilo reconstruction was awesome, and he makes really cool monster suites and even his old music was okay, but Jesus christ do I not like his digital art. And giving abeliosaurs feathers will always be moronic
>the scientists who give a shit left to look a plates and hope the material is accurately represented in these papers.
kek
non-scientist detected.
If the original descriptions of material are lazy, and the actual material is not available to you, you are at the mercy of the visual scans, pictures, and sketches of that material to try and figure out what it is.
that's not how it works in real life. In real life people can travel to different places, and fossils can often be shipped to different places. And if neither of those options are available, people in other places can send you pictures, CT scans, measurements, and 3D scans of the fossils if you want.
non-scientists are indeed stuck looking at pictures in papers though. They don't have access to fossils even if they're right down the street though.
>the wannabe resident schizo turned into the buttmonkey of the board
Pottery
Flanders is the better troll btw
>>the wannabe resident schizo
You're gonna have to narrow it down sonny, we've got more than a few of those.
The fossil evidence is indisputable.
Dinosaurs had feathers.
Dogs are smarter, cleaner, and more useful than cats.
Palestine isn’t a real country.
what I find so funny about this naughty little monkey (OP) is that he tries so hard to bait people into tard rages, and then ends up falling for the most low-brow, easy-to-ignore bait imaginable, see him responding to the pro-women AI prompts I made earlier. Seriously, imagine thinking you're a good troll when you fall for troll posts made by better trolls.
is posting boring facts like this REALLY what passes for trolling on Wauf?
>no shit, look at the rocks. FEATHERS. even the fricking bible says god made birds first. AKA dinosaurs.
>no shit, they have larger brains, better social skills, and get groomed properly because they dont false-groom and convince their owners neglect is ok, dogs are also better contained so they dont dumpster dive like cats
>no shit, the palestine mandate was basically a wasteland, arabs started showing up after the israelites because they didnt want israel to be real. palestine is counter-colonization on the part of lebanese and jordanians.
basically, yeah. we're all very, very autistic
4699029
man you are trying so hard to troll it's sad
sorry for taking so long to respond I didn't realize you replied because I didn't see a (You)! anyways, I think my point stands pretty well: There's no reason to believe those finds aren't also forgeries. There haven't even been any tests done to examine them.
and your source is?
How about your precious paleontologists themselves? This is one of THEIR talking points. They can't examine the cellular structure of every fossil so they just have to assume chinese fossils are genuine.
>I hate the current trend of paleozoology is to depict animals with wildly speculative and outlandish designs.
Lmao. I have bad news for you buddy. This was always the case.
They find one, two bones and somehow „recreate“ the whole body.
The fact is we don’t know what dinosaurs looked like and we never will.
What about the many species with complete or near complete skeletons as well as integument?
I agree on that example tho, i hate when people do that shit
>They find one, two bones and somehow „recreate“ the whole body.
>A generic dinosaur silhouette is recreating the whole body
You're moronic
>Lmao. I have bad news for you buddy. This was always the case.
No it wasn't, zoomer. The anatomical rigor method is specifically why dinosaur reconstructions from the 90s still tend to be the best.
Okay, prove them wrong.
You can't prove a negative, you fricking moron. Sauropods could levitate. Prove me wrong. That's not how science operates.
You people do realise scales and feathers can exist on the skin at the same time?
yes, but that's not a good example.
Also the scales on bird feet are just modified feathers.
>Also the scales on bird feet are just modified feathers
>feathers don't just disappear to be replaced by scales
It’s fascinating really
>It’s fascinating really
I've spent months of my life showing the OP how bird feathers became scales. It was a waste of time, he is far too stupid to understand and way too biased to learn.
The science is out there. Several thousand papers on the topic and they all agree.
also worth mentioning that the schizo is right
we don't have a single example where EVERY FEATHER ON A BIRD TURNED TO SCALES.
That's pretty fricking unlikely. Not impossible, just really fricking unlikely.
so even if the schizo is an idiot, he sometimes gets the right answer anyways. T. rex probably didn't go from fully feathered to fully scaled. That's unknown territory. We have never seen it happen.
we know feathers became scales on bird feet and faces. Proving that it's POSSIBLE.
We have never seen a bird turn all of its feathers into scales, proving that it's EXTREMELY UNLIKELY.
paleoschizo can't compute this. The idea that something is possible, AND ALSO extremely unlikely. This blows his autistic brain right out his autistic skull.
>paleoschizo can't compute this.
though he gets it just fine if he wants to.
feathers of the gaps is one of his faves. If we find 56 skin patches from tyrannosaurids, and none of them have feathers, and all of them have scales
it is POSSIBLE that other skin we haven't found is feathered
It's just really fricking UNLIKELY.
he understands that just fine, because it supports opinions he prefers for reasons of politics and insanity.
you seem to be an expert on anatomy,
how about you give us your opinion on the presence or absence of the mandibulo-hyomandibular joint in the fish head thread?
anyone interested in paleo or evo-devo should surely be interested in that.
of course the reason the hyomandibula is so interesting to paleontologists and other evolutionary scientists is because it became the columella in amphibians and reptiles, and then the stapes in mammals and dinosaurs, including birds.
this means early synapsids were reptiles because they had a columella before the stapes. Just like early archosaurs. Both mammals and dinosaurs convergently evolved the stapes.
This would blow the paleoschizo's tiny little mind if he understood it or cared. He of course does neither.
>The evolution of the columella is closely related to the evolution of the jaw joint. It is an ancestral homolog of the stapes, and is derived from the hyomandibular bone of fishes.[2]
see also, hyoid
a bone of particular interest to cops and forensic scientists studying murder victims.
>this means early synapsids were reptiles
You do realize you're going against the mainstream here. And you're absolutely correct in this case. Saying "reptiles don't exist" and that somehow synapsids and sauropsids come from totally different lineages has always been full moron.
>Both mammals and dinosaurs convergently evolved the stapes.
Wouldn't be the first thing. Gorgonopsid skulls look eerily like Theropod skulls and close in exactly the same puzzle piece fashion. Both are also thecodonts, which is weird. I've actually been wondering the past year or so if maybe there really is some kind of "thecodonta" as a valid taxonomic group.
>I've spent months of my life showing the OP how bird feathers became scales.
Not OP. And we've read the same papers, sweaty. I just disagree with them, while you don't. Don't act like a fricking democrat now and just assume your opponent "can't understand". Sometimes people fully understand and just think the stated explanation is bullshit. There are NOT "several thousand" papers on feathers turning into scales.
I would say it's actually physically impossible. Though now morons are trying to claim humans can grow feathers so lol facts don't matter anymore.
>we know feathers became scales on bird feet and faces
You just keep stating absolutes made out of fantasy. We DO NOT "know" this bullshit and in fact it flies in the face of every evolutionary principle understood.
I get it just fine because not only is it logical but it's how science is supposed to be done. Anyone arguing that Russel's Teapot is "good science axchually" is a moron. Anyone claiming they know everything is also a moron. There are lot of both types in modern scientism.
>not OP
Yeah ok pal. Frickin oo-oo-aah-aah dancing monkey ass.
Nobody is interested in your L33T gotcha anatomy threads. You can clearly see the opercula. Nobody cares.
At the end of the day if anons here are interested in dinosaur feathers and scales but not interested in ID'ing cat or fish skulls, none of them are even slightly interested in paleo.
because paleontology isn't about feathers or scales, it's about ID'ing cat and fish skulls. It's fricking science, with no goals and no aims. Just wherever evidence lead without preference for any particular outcome.
I see what you're doing, but you do realize that most paleontologists have an absolutely ass understanding of comparative anatomy, right? Most of them think dinosaurs were basically mammal-birds. Most can't even come to grips with the fact that dinosaurs are reptiles.
Oh don't be mistaken, we name names because there are some guilty parties. Science isn't in crisis because STEM is full of good scientists.
China literally is faking most of its fossils. But don't take my word for it. Take Xu Xing's.
Honestly, dude, you don't have much of a point in saying dinosaurs didn't have feathers anymore after DIP-V-15103 and UALVP 52531.
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)31193-9
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195667115300847
You have definitive feathers on at least two species of dinosaurs outside of China and Mongolia. To act like non-avian dinosaurs never had any feathers whatsoever is just simply wrong.
This is from Alberta, Canada, for those who don't want to check the links.
>look how easy it is to fake feathers
>Yeah I admit fully some of them are fake, but you must consider the two examples that exist outside of faker fakery land!
>see first point (they're easy to fake)
1000 chinamen fake feathers for every white man. You know what that gets you? 1 fake feathered dino from the white man.
>It's fake because it's Chinese!
>Not all are Chinese.
>It's fake because... it just is, okay?!
>feathers are easy to fake, just look at the chinese admitting as much
>buh-buh it only chinese people who fake look at these literally ONLY 2 OTHER EXAMPLES OUT OF THOUSANDS
>but we just heard all about how easy they are to fake
maybe you should stop being so racist against chinese people to think they're the only ones that would hoax it
Feathers are only easy to fake at the surface level. Its a little hard to fake melanosomes in a feather
Sweaty, if even half of dinosaur integument fossils were checked for melanosomes or any other pigment cells, we'd know what color most dinosaurs were by now.
Not sure what that has to do with anything, the point was that its kind of hard to fake that by drawing on a rock with charcoal
I'm telling you you're an idiot, as I have to about seven times a thread.
That's what worries me and nobody is talking about it. The ~~*west*~~ has let xu xing the rest of china get away with so much for so long, that it was inevitable that some ~~*westerners*~~ were going to get in on the act. This is what I suspect has already happened with Ornithomimus. But I may be wrong.
Post something that isn't boreal and we'll talk. This is like how you morons always post the <1% of birds that have wattles then try to claim all dinosaurs had them when most BIRDS don't even have them.
No they're fricking not and repeating this on loop will NEVER make it so. If this were even remotely true, it should be possible to turn bird body feathers into scales. It isn't. It never will be. Birds never LOST the scales on their feet. That is Occam's Razor in action, baby. And to even begin to claim the opposite you have to come up with all sorts of batshittery for why feathers can't turn into scales today (cue some moron posting a wood stork). The obvious solution to this imagined problem is that birds lost the scales on their bodies a LONG fricking time ago. So long ago, in fact they no longer even have the genes to PRODUCE scales on their bodies. That's why exactly ZERO (0) birds have ever changed feathers into scales. But there must be some trigger to cover the body in feathers in an animal that has scaled ancestors. THAT is why you can turn chicken feet scales into feathers. Because feathers evolved from scales to begin with and the genetic memory is still in the bird's code. It's also why you CAN'T turn feathers into scales. Because that genetic pathway was NEVER present to begin with. It's pretty fricking obvious this is the correct answer, but feathergays just won't let go.
>Because that genetic pathway was NEVER present to begin with. It's pretty fricking obvious this is the correct answer, but feathergays just won't let go.
Sounds like you made this up because if fits your view on the subject, where's the genetic study that showed this?
>Post something that isn't boreal and we'll talk
Most owls have this, picrel is an australian powerful owl
>But don't take my word for it. Take Xu Xing's.
>China is lying, just listen to Xu Xing. Oh but he's a liar too since he described a bunch of feathered dinosaurs from china, even though he's the one usually exposing fakes
Imagine being mad about feathered dinosaurs.
I had a phase when I was 5-8 or so where I fantasized about killing Jack Horner for comparing dinosaurs to chickens or some shit. But then I stopped seething and grew up.
Imagine NOT being angry at normalized lying in science. That takes a woman.
So what you're trying to tell us is that women make you seethe? Maybe because... you can never become one?
No I'm telling you women are stupid and they need to shut up because their voices are grating noise pollution.
>supports censorship
>hates the chinese
when does the contrarian shortbus stop im tired
Making women be quiet isn't censorship. It's called civilization.
I thought you weirdos hated civilization, remember? TradLARPs are funny.
I'm an ancient. I have never believed in modern "civilization". The past 2,000 years are the history of feminine races like israelites and germs taking over and destroying the world.
>TradLARP copium
You will never be a nazi, you will never be a traditional catholic, and you most certainly will never be white. Seethe.
I sure hope not. I would never wish to be a - may allah forgive me for using this word - german.
What we have today is a society, not a civilization.
>they're lying because... because they just are okay!?!?
No, you're lying because you're israeli. You're also lying because you're a women. Combined, these traits mean you literally are incapable of telling the truth even accidentally.
I'm neither israeli nor a woman, but don't let that get in the way of your schizophrenic persecution complex.
moronic puritan homosexual.
You're both AND moronic.
I see paleoschizo is done with his little Wauf detour and has returned home
outsider here, why is the dino world always depicted as a berserk-tier hellscape of constant torment and brutality? i mean the fossils look big and scary but the same principles of predator/prey population dynamics as today must've applied
Other than like really old ass shit from the 1920s, nobody depicts it like that as far as I'm aware.
I love when feathergays who DO believe the argument against Engh moronation IS that 'feathered dinosaurs aren't scary,' because they usually use video related to make their point. The best part is that it's a video where the dinosaur is completely hidden in darkness and you can't even see any feathers.
?si=LarQVKVWOoD3YXv5
you silly little b8 gobbling naughty monkey
their climate models cant even predict the past
It's even worse than that. Because global warming alarmism has infiltrated everything in STEM, paleontologists don't even relate paleoecology correctly. Consider Hell Creek. There is zero evidence of frost even from the Maastrichtian. The flora is subtropical. The lizard families present are outright TROPICAL, but the average annual temperature is repeatedly reported as around 50° F. They admit that frost is unlikely but they cram this ecosystem into modern prejudices by claiming that the summers never got much hotter than 75° F, which is obviously absurd. These temps are on par with MODERN Alaska (which doesn't have palms). They also claim the rainfall was absurdly low. The averages come out to being similar to NORTHERN OHIO in the modern age.
>Frost
>Mesozoic
>Literal peawiener feather.
I love my little guava man.
>small, mostly green lizard with an extendible dewlap (which is colorful in males only) is proof that a 1 - 2 ton carnivore could have had literal peawiener feathers
try harder
Like, seriously man. Get an IP changer or something, this is no fun, all of your tricks are observable from a mile away.
>this thread
He's pretty much been talking to himself the whole time, see the 113/22 post/poster ratio lolololol
You predictable little primate< i frickin love how easy it is to wrangle you up and dick you down lo
How did their mere existence mindbroke scaletrannies so hard?
hilarious how poster count hasn't changed at ALL since I
stopped posting
And no, I'm not spoonfeeding you, bad little monkeys have to do their own thinking 😉
You
Dancing,
NAUGHTY,
M O N K E Y .
>fantasy: theropods were crocs
>reality: these are the only theropods we can be certain about
Disproven by Yutyrannus. All theropod dinosaurs were feathered.
...and poster count has yet to change
You're not very bright, are you?
Yutyrannus is very clearly not closely related to T. rex and i have no idea why people ever believed that. The fricker has long arms with 3 fingers and a long, slender snout, quite literally the opposite of tyrannosaurs
Tyrannosaurines are outliers among Tyrannosauroidea in terms of mass and proportions
Because they want T. rex to have feathers. That's literally it.
Because homosexuals obsessed with theropods are the loudest voice, unfortunately.
Engh has been mentioned in this thread more than once.
There is no such thing as Tyrannosauroidea and feathers don't just disappear to be replaced by scales. If you can't grasp this you neither understand reptile/bird anatomy nor evolution.
>Because homosexuals obsessed with theropods are the loudest voice, unfortunately.
Yourself included
probably the most annoying thing about the paleoschizo.
He has no real interest in paleo.
at all.
doesn't even know what it is.
thinks it's cartoon drawings of theropods.
and then gets mad about it.
>Engh has been mentioned in this thread more than once.
Now that you mention it I guess he does do it sometimes.I'm usually transfixed by the stupid whiskers and dulaps to notice the background. I've seen him put them in normal natural settings too so I'd say it's more 50/50 with him.
those who can't understand science discuss scientists instead.
or the scribbles of non-scientists based loosely on science.
whatever, Wauf has always been deeply disappointing when it comes to actual science. It took you gays several days and multiple failures to ID extant crocodilians. You'd probably still be getting them wrong if I hadn't stepped in and given the right answer.
I honestly don't know who you think I am. It just seems like you're fighting the air right now. There are so many freaks in here I don't even know if you're that old divorcee guy or the guy who thinks China is faking feathers on most of their fossil finds.
>sometimes
That's literally all he fricking does. Emily willoughby is the same way. Unfortunately, the trend is to make paleoart MORE gory these days. Has been for about a decade and a half.
>Unfortunately, the trend is to make paleoart MORE gory these days. Has been for about a decade and a half.
Maybe in the bubble you hyperfixate on, but the general trend of paleoart is the exact opposite to stray away from the whole cartoonishly vicious dinosaurs with pea brains from the 20th century
That's nice sweetie. Now eat your carrots.
Anon, everyone born after the 70s thinks gore is cool. Its an overreaction to boomers hypocrisy with destructive, idiotic moralizing
>durr violent vidya games bad btw sign up to shoot civillians because gommunism and i support police beating the shit out of stoners *swigs vodka* -an entire generation of homosexuals, as they ruined our economy and demographics
Have you heard of DOOM, CALL OF DUTY, UNREAL TOURNAMENT, HALO? No? Then shut the frick up boomer. Gore is cool. Frick your fake values you fricks never followed them. Even the fricking church circa ages ago had gory art and bloody stories. People used to watch executions for fun. Boomer puritans are homosexuals and I’m glad violence is returning to this boomer field. Exposure to blood mans you the frick up and prevents veganism and soi liberalism.
Only if you're a raging homosex.
>literal boomer just found his first goth
Oh so you were the old man with the pink postit after all
>There is no such thing as Tyrannosauroidea
moron alert
He's just parroting what several actual paleontologists have quite rightly suggested. Something I've been saying here for over a decade.
Tyrannosauroidea isn't diagnostic prior to the late Cretaceous. It exists, but most of the current tyrannosauroids are very likely going to be reassigned at some point.
Nobody cares, paleoschizo. You're talking to yourself.
You can't disprove direct fossil evidence with "phylogenetic bracketing"
Who knew it was this easy to get a chimpanzee to dance?
Dinosaurs with feathers or worse, hair are very disturbing honestly.
The idea of watching a mid size creature that you would almost believe to be a mammal opening its mouth and turning out to be a braindead reptilian crocodile killing machine with serrated teeth rows is quite unsettling
Almost as much as literal crocodiles growing long legs and walking with their body hanging on 2 legs
This is quite possibly the gayest thing I have ever seen.
>Feathers
>On a fricking pseudosuchian
All dinosaurs had feathers. Deal with it.
>pseudosuchian
>Dinosaur
Oh boy.
feathers are possibly ancestral to all archosauria. This is said every thread.
They're not. You are reminded of this every thread. Not only do Aphanosaurs and Silesaurids have only scales and osteoderms, but it's possible Pterosaurs don't even have pycnofibers. And pseudosuchians CERTAINLY don't have feathers. It's also likely that ALL "feathers" from the three Ornithischian species that "have" them (Tianyulong, Psittacosaurus & Kulindadromeus) are misidentified plant remains.
What clade would you put Aves into? Curious.
Birds.
And birds would come from?
I'm not trying to goad you into saying anything anything, nor is this a 'gotcha'.
And humans would come from? Why aren't you a lungfish?
>nor is this a 'gotcha'.
Of course it is. It's a tired one at that. Clades are for babybrains. They don't describe or define shit. They're not real. And any taxonomic system based on them is fallacious. Cladism lacks organization, structure and truth. Only cladists will try to make wild ass claims about imagined dinosaur characteristics like feathers on sauropods with shit like "phylogenetic bracketing" or claim that paraphyly means you can't use the word "fish" or "reptile", because then I'm triggered, despite reptiles being an objectively real, observable part of living, modern day biology.
homie what lineage do people and birds come from? Don't pretend you don't have a suggestion. nta but I'd take ANYTHING. Just tell us what you think homie
I mean how far back are you asking? If you want to be a cladist pedant then technically humans are lobe-finned fish, but nobody calls coelacanths "non-human sarcopteryigians". I'll never use the term "non-avian dinosaur". That's for damn sure. And frankly, I wonder if Feduccia was right all along, because there's still no good idea where the frick birds come from. Archaeopteryx is just there in the fossil record, fully feathered with clawed wings with no precedent. I can say that a lot of featherhomosexual claims are absurdly fallacious. Especially all the "phylogenetic bracketing" horseshit. Most of the groups they claim have feathers don't even fricking have them to begin with so arguing they're ancestral to archosaurs or something is full moron.
I don't know, maybe you were being genuine. Frankly, I hear this dumb shit every day on this board and everywhere else on the internet. And it's pretty much always an attempt at a gotcha.
Thank you.
Ok.
>misidentified plant remains.
no, it's not
those are very distinctive from each other in structure and would appear as uniform covering
Yes they are.
You have a vegana.
If the luminiferous aether doesn't exist, then light is the only wave in existence that propagates without a medium. General relativity is fricking moronic.
Maybe aether is just what we now call dark matter? I'm not fully versed on astrophysics stuff anyhow and I don't claim to be so I'm not here to dispute it or support it other than to say to the best of my knowledge general relativity is the best predictive model we have even if it's not perfect and could be disproven later on.
No. Dark matter and dark energy are just math errors.
I don't know yet. I like the comparison to Tanystropheids, but there are a LOT of archosauromorphs to go through. I definitely don't agree with David Peters that they're Lizards. But I also am about 90% sure they're NOT archosaurs.
Good. Hopefully one of them smites you.
>Nope.
Yep.
>space-time
Is made up bullshit. It's also not a medium even by the most liberal definition.
>You have a vegana.
Nope.
>If the luminiferous aether doesn't exist, then light is the only wave in existence that propagates without a medium. General relativity is fricking moronic.
Light does propagate through a medium. It's called "space-time."
It's kind of funny that Wauf has almost the same schizophrenics as Wauf.
How many planets are in the solar system?
the image paired with the text made me laugh the hardest at a Wauf post since 2009
Kinoraptors won
This looks like snuff fetish stuff
>WAAA-AAAH-OOH-OOH-AAH-AAH!
>"yo wtf is up with that macaque?"
>"OOK-OOK-OOK"
>"idk but it's frickin hilarious lol"
It is. Feathergays are all sick fricks.
esoteric merchant
>Literal peawiener feather.
this is the most annoying thing about paleoart to me. How do these gays manage to copy existing animals 1:1? It's more likely for them to have ludicrous displays than to be literally my mom's barn owl, like the mononykus in prehistoric planet. Kayakasaurus has made his entire youtube channel on copying exact patterns from real animals and it's very annoying seeing it pop up everywhere.
Marxists have no imagination and are stuck in the "real world", mostly their own shitty mundane existence but also what's around them. Why are dragons in media so often behaving like housepets or farm animals? Because these creatures don't have any comprehension of anything other then what's scurrying around on their shitty two-room apartment or what they can watch on youtube. The same gets applied to dinosaurs.
'Imagination' = making stuff up
Besides, you basically just want birds anyway, not much creativity in that.
I've never seen a bird like this before
Whoever designed this thing clearly ripped it off from the hooded seal
And whoever designed the hooded seal clearly ripped it off from the dromedary camel
I didn't even know about that one, neat. Also proves there's nothing wrong with sauropods having this.
Except that they didn't. Ask me how I know you don't know what Russel's Teapot is.
paleoart isn't setting out to prove a specific depiction; it's setting out to prove reasonably accurate depictions. The fact that so many different animals across so many different groups have these air sacks shows that sauropods could, too. With how many sauropods there were, it's absolutely possible, thus reasonably accurate.
And yet it literally appears in museums.
You realize that analogy was made to combat the belief that we must believe that God exists by default, right? Are you going to transition to your gaytheist personality, or stay in your current "STOP LOOKING FOR ANSWERS, CHUD!" christcuck form?
Please, DO show us what you turn into next, Vishnu.
Once again, you clearly don't understand what it is or what it means. Or why the analogy came to be to begin with.
Ah, you're a creationist. This is why I coined the term "feathers of the gaps". Feathergays have all the argumentative power of creationists.
>Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
Do you ever tire of being this much of a disingenuous troll?
Were you there? No? Then shut up and listen to the experts.
Look out! He's gonna have an autistic meltdown and start going "SOIENCE, SOIENCE, WOMENWOMENWOMEN, CHINACHINACHINACHINA DKUQAOILFUHAWORFHWR"!
>this level of projection
"Projection"? It's quite literally what you always end up doing whenever you vomit one of these threads up. It's over, everybody knows your game. Find new material, and no "dogs/cats sucks" isn't edgy or new in the slightest.
Who is this "you"?
Is this person in the room with us right now?
Holy shit I genuinely just laughed out loud at my computer screen over how moronic your post was
I'm not here to entertain your fantasies or strawmen.
Your schtick is played out and dry
Some dinosaurs had feathers
Dogs are based
Cats are also based but are fricktarded and largely useless
Now go make another thread
See
I don't even post in dog/cat threads.
You know I'm right and can't do anything about it 😉
Dance, Monkey! DANCE!
Oh It's not even projection, they just don't like it when you call out them being women. Women are the israelites of gender.
>tropical reptiles and birds are colorful as frick
>but i should assume tropical bird-reptiles werent
??
shhhh he's moronic
What? Why? As long as it's not troony flags it's pretty based. Animals have bizarre features that would sound made up all the time.
>criticize Jurassic Park for being too speculative
>turn around and push speculative bullshit for no other reason than actual discoveries have dried up and you have to use fantasy to sell your new dino documentary
that was my first post in the thread. JP was actually pretty accurate at the time - its version of T. rex was stellar. The raptors should have been renamed, though.
>Becuase it's pure speculation and nothing else. In other words, it's most likely wrong.
All reconstruction is speculation, and there is nothing wrong with speculation. There's literally nothing wrong with it. Declare it as speculation, have tame and conservative reconstructions - but also have more interesting and speculative ones. That's not hard to get, right?
JP wasn't accurate at all, and it was never the point. The point of JP was that genetics is something that Humanity cannot fully control and trying to resurrect Dinosaurs would result in unexpected outcomes, such as a dinosaur intended to be the park's mid level carnivore exhibit not only being nocturnal but poisonous as well. It intentionally flew in the face of what was thought at the time, because that was the point.
Then the Dinosaur Renaissance advocates at the time latched onto both the book and the movie, saying "See? Dinosaurs are fast and agile like birds! But, umm, it's really inaccurate... The raptors are too big and blah blah blah." Which completely misses the point.
Oh no, there are seven basic plots in fiction.
chrichton was entertainment, nothing more.
we won't be cloning extinct dinosaurs in your lifetime so it doesn't matter. The actual truth is he played to the moron's fear of technology wonderfully.
Autist, JP is more about genetic engineering in general rather than cloning specifically. If anything, the book is just Westworld: Dinosaur edition. Same exact message.
never read westworld but I remember the fear of gene splicing in the early 70's.
either way it's just neoluddite fear porn.
and of course it's about cloning, we still haven't managed to clone anything born from an egg. Chrichton remains ahead of his time on that. You might just die of old age before we clone a chicken.
That's nice, moron.
thanks for this cogent rebuttal
and this
not at all false dichotomous autistic nitpicking
you clearly aren't a butthurt fart huffing pedant
Cope.
goalposts: moved. I didn't criticize JP for being too speculative. I like JP. It's cool when dinos are accurate. It's also cool when dinos have speculative features.
>I like to imagine dinos as large birds. Not crocs. Frick off
You need to be 18+ years or older to use this site.
>found perfectly preserved pigments
>red, white and brown colorful creature that is not even close to the levels of sexuak display as therapods
Crocodiletroonysisters.... not like this.... birdchads keep winning
Is this my photo?
Holy shit the poster count went up!
>he's just replying to himself now
I don't know why you would think the fact that an animal's skin being not crocodile color is a win. Is a Basilisk lizard's color a bird win?
I like to imagine dinos as large birds. Not crocs. Frick off
how is that "wildly speculative and outlandish" in anyway ?
all in all it is a very tame and conservative reconstruction
Gore isn't the problem with the art of Engh, et al, the issue is the intentional grotesqueness. The vast majority of real animals have gravitas or grace or purpose in their appearance, and the recognizance of this makes them aesthetically pleasing, The ugliest of animals, like the warthog, the hippo, the saiga, the beaded lizard, the marine iguana, the komodo dragon, the stargazer fish, the goblin shark, etc, are all beautiful compared to
or
Engh knows this about his art, and he things he's being "clever" by being transgressive and making intentionally ugly art of these creatures despite having the skill to portray them in a much more realistic and awesome way.
I wanna see a whole "documentary" done in the visuals and antiquated understandings of the antediluvian hellscape style of dinos, made purely for entertainment, just to watch all the bluehair speculatives shriek about how THIS style of made-up nonsense isn't acceptable.
The only person I ever see crying about what dinosaurs look like is the paleoschizo on Wauf
xe is very fragile. We all laugh at xim
...except they probably won't because it's very obviously done for entertainment. You gays just looove making characters up in your brains to get mad about, huh?
Says the fake women constantly shrieking about imaginary nazis in between useless sperging at Jurassic Park.
Yeah, ok Mr. "TRANNIES AND israeliteS ARE TRYING TO MAKE MY GAY ASS GET A BONER OVER DINOSAURS BECAUSE THEY JUST ARE OKAY?"
I wanna see a series like that but every episode shows a different era of understanding and interpretation. The last one would cover the post-JP era around 2000 or so.
See, this is an excellent idea for a film or piece of media. You could extrapolate it like
suggests but I think that would be too large of a scope, personally.
>I hate the current trend of paleozoology is to depict animals with wildly speculative and outlandish designs.
I know, right?! Dinos and stuff were all dull grey like animals are today...
aww look she's smiling 🙂
Reminder that it's not really that this is wrong and inaccurate, it's that it was done without approval by the right people.
>im moronid
Thanks anon, we already know. Anyways, it's got a frickin bulldog skull in comparison to it's irl counterparts.
Do you ever get bored of playing chess with yourself and always somehow end up losing?
This one I can never wrap my head around, the feathers are one thing, but those huge testicle sacs on the neck are fricking BEGGING to be torn at by a competing carnivore.
>those huge testicle sacs on the neck are fricking BEGGING to be torn at by a competing carnivore.
yes, that's the point
the animal is so badass he can have an instant kill switch mounted on the front of his body and still survive even with others trying to rip it open.
handicap principle and honest signaling. Might be true, might not, but it's not hard to understand.
I like how the arm feathers in these two remind me of the turtle courtship in my pic. Seems like a good use of the tiny noodle arms beyond just stabilizing a grip on food or “no use whatsoever”. Like snakes being all flirty with their leg spurs.
This looks fricking AI generated.
and?
Even a year later, this specific Dreadnoughtus still causes people to seethe. How does he do it?
Besides, the neck balloons there are still really tame compared to some of the other stuff out there.
>Wow I do somefing stoopit and people mad. Dat mean i gud.
Well, yeah. He's making (You) seethe.
And I'd like to add to this, any further (You)/non-(You) response = instant concession/cope/denial/I blow a load on your mother's face
Not so fast. Awesomesaurus is still the reigning champ in these matters.
Jurassic Park Dinos are explicitly not really dinosaurs. From the beginning, InGen fricked with them to create military monsters.
The only exception is the "Velociraptors" that are really Utah Raptors.
Utahrapror has literally nothing in common with ingen velociraptors
See, you're seething already and that picture doesn't even have the frill.
>the "Velociraptors" that are really Utah Raptors
They're actually based on Deinonychus.
It was mostly using frog dna
Utahraptor wasn't known when the movie came out you fricking moron, they are Deinonychus
Lol non-canon Jurassic World retcons meant to explain away the fact many of the original movies iconic designs had been made outdated by new science, much in the same way as portrayals of upright standing Trex's in pre-JP media. The movie made a huge deal about how accurate it's Dino's were according to the paleontology of the time, like the theropods using a bird like posture instead of the traditional Hollywood upright one.
The frog-DNA thing is quite literally discussed in the book.
First of all we're discussing the movie, not the book.
Second of all, the Frog DNA thing (in the movie at least) is not meant to say some dumb thing about "not really dinosaurs", It's simply a setup for the egg laying plot twist. Basically that it accidentally gave Dino's a mutation the lay a clutch, after which there are male Dinos and thus a natural self sustaining population. Literally "Nature finds a way" not "Oh no the frankensteins!"
Another thread where autistic losers argue about "animals" that were as real as dragons and nephilim.
Dragons are real. Nephilim are israeli bullshit.
nephilim were/are the (now wandering) spirits of dead pagan god-kings conceived in pagan sex rituals
No.
oh well i guess not then
Been a while since we had one of these
I think there's been enough of an outcry about it that the trend will pass within the next few years. Depictions of dinosaurs (and other extinct animals of the same general timeframe) always go in aesthetic waves like this, with actual science often put on a backburner in favor of an outlandish or striking artistic design.
We'll never be rid of feathered T. rex though. Never.
It's already on it's way out. And they're already doing revisionism that it never happened, even though the art is still floating around. Much like how they're pretending the whole "feather dinos aren't scary" sentiment was some reactionary caveman delusion rather then a response to their very deliberate attempts to soften and domesticate dinosaur designs and activities, which again we can still find that online.
Entertaining that they cling to Prehistoric Planet for validation when at times it comes off as damage control for their own stupidity.
Can someone please explain to me who paleoschizo is, and what stance they're apparently taking? Because I made this post a while back:
And have now returned days later to the most incomprehensible Wauf thread I've read through since fricking 2009. I feel like my brain is melting.
I'm the guy the israeli prostitute calls "paleoschizo". She calls me that because I faithfully call out lies in science without any fear to job or reputation because while I study scientific fields profusely, I NEVER work in them because I know better (academia is as hopeless as america at this point). I 100% agree with your post. In fact, I posted it first:
The part of the thread that appears insane to you is mostly paleoprostitute throwing a fricking tantrum that anyone would question anything mainstream. This is immensely triggering to her. And to a much lesser degree the old paleontologist guy. Paleoprostitute may actually just be one of his headmates - I'm still unsure. Their posts blend together sometimes.
>I faithfully call out lies in science
nah, you faithfully call out minor inaccuracies in art, television, and illustration.
you don't really understand science, and the only time you cite it is on the very rare occasions when you think it agrees with you. Even then you're often wrong.
You're a grown man complaining about dinosaur cartoons and pretending they're science. Classic strawman. You think criticizing dinosaur cartoons on an FBI child porn honeypot site somehow has any impact on science at all.
Quit responding to him he's a known troll you moron
he's my pet troll, and I like responding to him.
Despite all his name calling, he is just a cheap copy of the set of posts he characterizes in his head as the "paleoprostitute." It's funny.
>I study scientific fields profusely
reading wikipedia articles and watching old dinosaur documentaries is not "studying scientific fields profusely"
Getting paid by special interests to spin propaganda isn't science.
>everything that upsets my autistic boomerbrain is propaganda and is wrong
Dinosaurs had feathers. Pluto is not a planet. Trump lost the election. The Earth is round. General Relativity is real. The luminiferous aether does not exist. Plate tectonics are real. The vaccines do not cause mass deaths or autism.
These are all things you and the other schizos that infest any board remotely related to the sciences need to accept. If you cannot accept these facts, you should frick off to /x/.
>soience
Using /misc/tard buzzwords mean your post gets disregarded.
>Dinosaurs had feathers.
False.
>Pluto is not a planet.
False.
>Trump lost the election.
True.
>The Earth is round.
True.
>General Relativity is real.
It's the best-working model we have at the moment.
>The luminiferous aether does not exist.
True.
>Plate tectonics are real.
True.
>The vaccines do not cause mass deaths or autism.
False.
>the featherschizo also still considers pluto a planet
Okay yeah you're just a moronic boomer who's buttblasted because science has moved beyond what was contained in his 6th grade textbook from 1965.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto
>Pluto (minor-planet designation: 134340 Pluto) is a dwarf planet
>minor-PLANET
>dwarf PLANET
It's a planet.
>It's a planet.
That means there's over 1,200,000 known planets in the solar system and probably another couple million we don't know about.
You might want to rethink that
Are you too colorblind to read greentext or something?
I told you
there are more than 3 million minor and dwarf planets in our solar system
Yeah, so? Pluto is a planet and you were wrong to say it's not.
so that means the earth gets hit by several hundred planets a year.
It's a reductio ad absurdum. You ESL english so badly to win arguments the language loses all meaning.
you're not convincing anyone of anything except that you should be in a padded room
66 million years ago, a meteor roughly 6 miles in diameter struck the Earth. It left a crater 12 miles deep and 110 miles in diameter and caused environmental disruption so severe that dinosaurs went extinct along with the death of an estimated 75% of all animal and plant life on earth.
Pluto has a diameter of roughly 1,426 miles, or about 237 TIMES the diameter of the meteor that killed off 75% of life on the planet. What do you suppose would happen if an object of that size were to strike the Earth even once, much less hundreds of times per year?
The only person being reductive and dishonest is you. All I said is that Pluto is a planet, which it is, dwarf or not. Is the sun not a star because it's a dwarf star? You're just mad I pointed out that you were wrong.
you are easily the dumbest person on this board.
Tell me what I said that was wrong. Is the sun not a star because it's a dwarf star? Do Pluto-sized objects really collide with Earth hundreds of times per year and reset all life on the planet every other day?
>How many planets are in the solar system?
Apparently millions.
Same, i think adding random shit to animals not known to have it takes away from the ones we do know had weird shit
Uh oh, paleoprostitute won't like this. Nuh-uh, not on HER board!
Don't worry, OP, this trend is now passing, thanks to relentless harassment by people sick of this woke dogshit in the sciences. If you're not looking at rocks, you're not doing paleontology. PERIOD.
You know I thought the whole paleo-schizo thing was just a funny joke about the China feather conspiracy, but then you started making up characters in your head about the people bullying you
>paleoprostitute
Whoa whoa whoa, who is this? More importantly, is she hot?
No, she's a israelite.
Interesting you post a pterosaur. They may not have had pycnofibers EITHER.
?t=1120
Cool, as expected you just copied and pasted from wikipedia. But do you UNDERSTAND it?
As expected, rather than realizing your mistake, you still continue to screech and shit yourself when your epic fail is pointed out to the whole thread
Kek!
You haven't answered the question. Do you know what the purpose of Russel's Teapot is? Put it in your own words.
refer to
Poster count has AGAIN yet to change.
So you don't then. Yeah, I'd say that's typical for spec morons and featherhomosexuals.
>"ooh-ooh aa-aa-WUA-AAA-AAA-AAA"
LOL!
I’m not sure what the argument is about at this point but I’d just like to say that you’re fricking moronic.
Women are actually more than "cool" they are extremely important in paleontology. I cannot stress enough how much women have contributed to the progress of paleontology. It is impossible to deny the incredible achievements of women in this exciting field. I agree that having a majority of the say in paleontology is essential for the continued advancement of this science.
Name one thing. Literally impossible mode: No Mary Anning.
>Name one thing. Literally impossible mode: No Mary Anning.
Aileen Anderson, Sue Benesch, Rose Marie Berthelson, Karen Chin, Mary Clark, Mary Dawson (first female president of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology), Elizabeth Jones, Angela M. Kay, Joan W. Longden, Margaret A. Mace, Maria E. McNamara, Joan W. Milne, Margaret A. M. Murray, Katherine van der Hoeven, Joan W. Williams, etc.
Let me know if you want more 🙂
Never heard of any of these dumb prostitutes.
That's great because it was an AI prompt from Character.ai
Sounds about right.
Good morning sir.
>I cannot stress enough how much women have contributed to the progress of paleontology.
This one post has done irreparable damage to my perception of paleontology as a legitimate field of scientific study. Thank you for opening my eyes.
>This one post has done irreparable damage to my perception of paleontology as a legitimate field of scientific study. Thank you for opening my eyes.
he says to himself for the threethousandth time this year, desperately hoping someone believes him.
I've never posted on Wauf before. Sorry my joke was so triggering for you.
Yeah, ok.
What's really going to change your "joke" to genuine opinion is realizing it's a woman paleontologist attacking you.
My favorite thing about Wauf is how the people calling out schizos sound more deranged than the schizos themselves
a crazy person thinks everyone sounds insane.
We know it's you, paleoschizo.
That's because it's mostly just one severely mentally ill israeli woman (paleoprostitute) that gets ENRAGED when you point out that modern paleontology is going down the wrong path.