So who comes out on top?

So who comes out on top?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >polar bears get absolutely bodied by barren ground grizzlies half their size
    Not looking good for the bear

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      while true it's because the polar bears absconded when the grizzlies came to feed not because they lost in a fight. the only solution is to give both cocaine and see what happens

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    the bigger one wins

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    bear gets hit, runs away, dinosaur chases and is lizard so exhausted, bear eats dinosaur with no energy left, um delicious gonna do this again, dinosaurs now extinct, coincidece i think not.

  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Something about that pic bothered me so I decided to use measurements I found online which I believe to be more reasonable, as well as a bulkier polar bear for the sake of fairness. Apparently the largest Utahraptor in this chart is the largest specimen known to us

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thought that bear seemed weirdly small. Thanks

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Utahraptor's bite force was quite high, so I presume it would be able to kill the bear pretty easily.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is it your belief a jaguar could kill a male lion?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        jaguar is not twice as large as a male lion

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nor is Utahraptor twice the size of a polar bear

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are clearly being disingenuous; the height advantage depicted in the OP image clearly demonstrates the ability of the larger animal to have both a height and reach advantage which is not factored into your analogy. Either you're being disingenuous or you're a dumb fricking Black person.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              how about you simmer down and emulate human speech more convincingly birdbrain?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      polar bear's bite force is stronger

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        height advantage

        how about you simmer down and emulate human speech more convincingly birdbrain?

        Black person Black person Black person

  6. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Where are they fighting? Utahraptor lived in the environmental equivalent of the Everglades while polar bears live in the Arctic. If they are fighting in East Texas, the Raptor probably wins, if they are fighting in northern Alaska, the Polar bear probably wins.

  7. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bear, probably.
    Stronger skeletal system means it can probably support stronger musclature.

  8. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    A T. rex would wreck an elephant of any size
    A Utahraptor would get wrecked by a polar bear's paws to its face

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      T-Rex ain't wrecking no 5 meter tall 22,000kg palaeoloxodon namadicus

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        In my opinion, if some ayylmaos set up an environment with P.namidicus and T.rex, the P.namidicus will be on the menu. Will the Tyrannosaurs attack full grown bulls in their prime? Only if other prey is unavailable, or some other circumstance made that specimen the most vulnerable prey item in the area.

        And FYI, the femur that would describe a 5 meter P.namidicus has been lost in the archives of an Indian museum for 60 years, no one has measured it since 1942. I don’t consider it reliable.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          you'll understand that i do believe in palaeoloxodon namadicus on the basis of coolness. but this isn't about predation, the phrasing of OP makes it sound like a face to face confrontaation. and both animals would most likely want to avoid that unless it's a bull at the peak of his musth

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        You morons still cant refute the basic "Large herbivore unfamiliar with large predator loses to large predator very familiar with large prey" argument.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          you still can't fathom that they'd be head to head. and you're mean for no reason, you angry man

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I should also point out by the way that the 22-ton Palaeoloxodon namadicus is based entirely on a single bone fragment that is now lost, making it about as dubious as a "Amphicoelias" which regularly gets disregarded for its lack of fossil evidence. But you don't get held up to the same level of scrutiny if you're not a dinosaur.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              yammer all you want and point things out while adjusting your glasses sir

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >sir
                Now it all makes sense, you people love elephants so much because we're dealing with pajeets. I'm sorry bro, huge elephants are cool but there's just no way these animals would be immune to predation from large theropods, especially carcharodontosaurids and large tyrannosaurs.

                you still can't fathom that they'd be head to head. and you're mean for no reason, you angry man

                >you still can't fathom the interaction would play out only the way *I* want it to!
                Lions eat water buffalo all the time and they don't do it by going "head to head".

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                there’s no need to be racist AND uptight in the same sentence

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              What level of scrutiny?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >A fragmentary femur from the same locality was said to be almost a quarter larger; volumetric analysis then yields a very speculative size estimate of 5 metres (16.4 ft) tall at the shoulder and 22 tonnes (24.3 short tons) in body mass, which if correct would make P. namadicus possibly the largest land mammal ever, exceeding even paraceratheres in size. However this estimate based on the "distal femur portion" the author stated should be "taken with a grain of salt" , as the author himself could only suspect that "fossils are likely stored in the Indian Museum of Kolkata; until such a collection can be revised, this size estimate will remain speculative."

                This then translates to masses of paleonerds blindly taking these measurements as undisputed fact, but when it comes to 50+ meter size estimates for large Sauropods, suddenly there's the appropriate and justified skepticism that comes into play. There's a discrepancy as to how seriously people take these estimates depending on whether it concerns dinosaurs or not. Instead people should be looking at all estimates of long extinct animals with the same scrutiny.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                What do you propose for its size then? It's what we have. And if they want to bring it up they will bring it up

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          We are talking about something a meter taller and 15000 kilos heavier than a Rex if the accepted numbers are to be believed. Any theropod would be a victim 1v1

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're talking about an animal that primarily hunted Triceratops - not as a rarity, primarily. You could almost say that these animals were built to hunt highly armored 9+ ton herbivores with large, forward projecting horns. And that's Triceratops, who specialized in defending itself against T. rex with sharp, forward facing horns, and not a proboscidean, who specialized in defending itself against large felines with blunt, downward facing horns.

            What do you propose for its size then? It's what we have. And if they want to bring it up they will bring it up

            >It's what we have.
            This board is fricking moronic. It's not "what we have" - it's speculative.

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              Triceratops were probably not 9 tons on average, that is a high end. And Tyrannosaurus didn't hunt them by charging forward and locking horns so to speak. Which is the premise of these kinds of threads.
              >It's not "what we have" - it's speculative.
              t's "what we have" because you couldn't cough up anything else despite having all the incentives and temperament to do so. So yes, 5 meters and 22 000 kilos is what we have unless you'd like me to consider a more reasonable figure.

              22 tons is not 15 tons heavier than 13 tons, and the 5 meter/22 ton estimate for P.namidicus is extremely suspect:
              [...]
              > However this estimate based on the "distal femur portion" the author stated should be "taken with a grain of salt" , as the author himself could only suspect that "fossils are likely stored in the Indian Museum of Kolkata; until such a collection can be revised, this size estimate will remain speculative."
              No one has measured this material since 1942 and no one has seen this material since the 60s.
              [...]
              > It's what we have.
              We don’t have it, any more than we have fossil evidence of blue whale sized sauropods or 20 meter Spinosaurs.

              Reguardless, if P.namidicus actually gets to 22 tons, the biggest predator that it ever saw in life was MAYBE 2 tons, and certainly not over 12. A Tyrannosaurus is still an out of context problem for P.namidicus.
              [...]
              >you'll understand that i do believe in palaeoloxodon namadicus on the basis of coolness
              I do honestly respect you for the admission that you’re willing to thumb the scales in favor of the animal you like. It’s a far more honest place to play the game from than most animalstans work from. Have a nice day!

              >13 tons
              Tyrannosaurus was most likely in the 6-9 thousand kilo range on average, Scotty and Sue in the 9,000 range. I'm not sure how big Berta is going to be.
              >Tyrannosaurus is still an out of context problem for P.namidicus.
              I would argue the reverse could also be said. This hypothetical thing outweighs the largest triceratops to ever live perhaps twice over and its shoulder stands more than a meter taller than the Rex's hip, at the very least Sue's. It is not the same thing as a comparatively tiny bush elephant encountering a Rex or some other gigantic theropod. Based on size alone it's likely this hypothetical specimen would be a "super tusker" and going about proportions then the tusks would likely be long enough to at least stave off a head on assault from Tyrannosaurus for a while.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            22 tons is not 15 tons heavier than 13 tons, and the 5 meter/22 ton estimate for P.namidicus is extremely suspect:

            >A fragmentary femur from the same locality was said to be almost a quarter larger; volumetric analysis then yields a very speculative size estimate of 5 metres (16.4 ft) tall at the shoulder and 22 tonnes (24.3 short tons) in body mass, which if correct would make P. namadicus possibly the largest land mammal ever, exceeding even paraceratheres in size. However this estimate based on the "distal femur portion" the author stated should be "taken with a grain of salt" , as the author himself could only suspect that "fossils are likely stored in the Indian Museum of Kolkata; until such a collection can be revised, this size estimate will remain speculative."

            This then translates to masses of paleonerds blindly taking these measurements as undisputed fact, but when it comes to 50+ meter size estimates for large Sauropods, suddenly there's the appropriate and justified skepticism that comes into play. There's a discrepancy as to how seriously people take these estimates depending on whether it concerns dinosaurs or not. Instead people should be looking at all estimates of long extinct animals with the same scrutiny.

            > However this estimate based on the "distal femur portion" the author stated should be "taken with a grain of salt" , as the author himself could only suspect that "fossils are likely stored in the Indian Museum of Kolkata; until such a collection can be revised, this size estimate will remain speculative."
            No one has measured this material since 1942 and no one has seen this material since the 60s.

            What do you propose for its size then? It's what we have. And if they want to bring it up they will bring it up

            > It's what we have.
            We don’t have it, any more than we have fossil evidence of blue whale sized sauropods or 20 meter Spinosaurs.

            Reguardless, if P.namidicus actually gets to 22 tons, the biggest predator that it ever saw in life was MAYBE 2 tons, and certainly not over 12. A Tyrannosaurus is still an out of context problem for P.namidicus.

            you'll understand that i do believe in palaeoloxodon namadicus on the basis of coolness. but this isn't about predation, the phrasing of OP makes it sound like a face to face confrontaation. and both animals would most likely want to avoid that unless it's a bull at the peak of his musth

            >you'll understand that i do believe in palaeoloxodon namadicus on the basis of coolness
            I do honestly respect you for the admission that you’re willing to thumb the scales in favor of the animal you like. It’s a far more honest place to play the game from than most animalstans work from. Have a nice day!

  9. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Are they fighting in Utah or Greenland?

  10. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Raptor jumps, gets behind the bear and goes for the nape, crushes it and shitty gay bear dies

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      is this a homosexual innuendo i'm too old to understand?

  11. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Utahraptor loses from the lower oxygen levels and hollow bones

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Big eyes for observing and a perfectly aerodynamic head for a quick getaway when thought starts being required.
      Life always finds a way.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      The oxygen levels increased.

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        from the cretaceous?

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, but not by much.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            15% sounds like a lot

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        i think he means the raptor would be taken here to lower oxygen levels not that the cretaceous had less oxygen

  12. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Either the bear overheats or the utahraptor freezes.

  13. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    Me

  14. 9 months ago
    Anonymous

    The two of them stand off, maybe charge and then whack the other a little. Then, they back off and go proceed to hunt together realizing that a fight to the death is unproductive and too risky, since neither is a clearcut victor.
    Maybe they crack open some beers while they're at it.

    • 9 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ok, both are female instead then

      • 9 months ago
        Anonymous

        they start scissoring while i watch

        • 9 months ago
          Anonymous

          I thought this board was for civilized animal discourse not bestiality

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            it's not bestiality when no human is involved. The watching is for purely scientific reasons.
            Get your mind out of the gutter.

          • 9 months ago
            Anonymous

            Bestiality/zoophilia/faunoiphilia are common and hot topics on this board. Most posters here would love to see some f/f polar bear on utahraptor action. I think you're lost, bud.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I thought this board was for civilized animal discourse not bestiality
            Why the hell would you think that?

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