>someone got paid millions to make shit up from a bunch of bones >Hollywood then made a bunch of movies about it to make it into a cultural phenomenon >WE'RE PROGRESSING AS A SPECIES MUCH ACADEMIC SUCH STUDIES
I fucking hate people.
Dinosaurs were reasonably well characterized before Hollywood got ahold of them, and they were discovered in the first place by English, Christian, natural historians - you know, the kind of men who built White civilization.
Meanwhile retarded Amerimutts reject this exhaustive, hard earned science (their own knowledge of which is limited to a few skimmed Wikipedia articles and dimly remembered childhood trips to museums). Why? Anything contrarian is "red-pilled", and gives them a sense of superiority which would otherwise be impossible to find in their worthless, garden gnomed existence.
They built the foundation for what we know now, moron.
https://i.imgur.com/zo4J5mx.jpg
>reasonably well characterized
You unironically can't figure out what something looked like just from its skeleton. If you applied the same manner of educated guessing they used for dinosaurs to this fucking thing, you'd get a retarded-looking, big-tittied alligator, not an orca. You probably wouldn't even know that it had a fucking dorsal fin, unless there's some kind of weird structure in the spine for it.
Muscle insertion scars, comparison to extant species, soft tissue traces in lagerstatte. You have an incredibly superficial level of knowledge and think you're smarter than the thousands of white scientists and engineers who built the world around you. What are you, some mutt who works at Wallmart, or a full blown NEET?
>soft tissue traces in lagerstatte.
Doesn't account for the possibility of additional soft tissues that weren't preserved successfully.
T-rexes could've had dicks on their noses, and you wouldn't know it.
lots of things are possible but so fucking unlikely that we can dismiss them. That is accounting for the possibility.
It's possible you're a genius but it's really fucking unlikely so I can both account for the possibility and dismiss it at the same time.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>lots of things are possible but so fucking unlikely that we can dismiss them.
By what metric does it seem likely to you that a perfectly intact specimen of any of these fucking things was preserved in its entirety via fossilization?
God you're a fucking retard. have a nice day.
>reasonably well characterized
You unironically can't figure out what something looked like just from its skeleton. If you applied the same manner of educated guessing they used for dinosaurs to this fucking thing, you'd get a retarded-looking, big-tittied alligator, not an orca. You probably wouldn't even know that it had a fucking dorsal fin, unless there's some kind of weird structure in the spine for it.
Does anyone else believe that schizophrenics like and their idiotic "conspiracies" are tacitly promoted by glowies in order to discredit genuine concerns about cover-ups? Both this and flat earth garbage for example are based on the idea that someone would waste tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars in order to hide and obfuscate the truth about something that is so utterly irrelevant to the average person's life and that isn't even tangentially related to politics. If such ideas exist and are the first thing that come to mind when the average person thinks of "conspiracy", then it works perfectly as a way of discrediting anything that implies the government/international elites have been hiding things from the general populace.
Yes, absolutely for flat earth, moon landings faked - especially in the latter case, as in addition to "poisoning the well" it acts as demoralization propaganda among those who believe it.
However, this kind of bullshit is probably too obscure for the glowies to be pushing, so it's likely just schizo boomers who seethe at any reconstruction of a dinosaur that doesn't look like their Jurassic Park collectables.
you'll be happy to hear no evidence for t-rex feathers has ever been found, no fossils, no quill knobs, literally nothing.
meanwhile we have impressions from multiple parts of the t-rex body that show bumpy mosaic scales, including from the tail, parts of the face, the neck, the legs...
paleo artist lately leave these parts bare and give them a weird feather cape, cause we have no impressions from the back yet so that must conveniently be the only place they had feathers, even though it makes 0 sense
at most, t-rex may have had some protofeather fuzz in a few places, like the whispey hairs elephants have.
If the genes for feathered reptiles exists even in crocodiles, why we don't portray the old ones with feather? since all dinos are portrayed with feather now?
>If the genes for feathered reptiles exists even in crocodiles, why we don't portray the old ones with feather?
Because paleoartists have to find it interesting or monetarily viable first. Just like people complaining about elaborately feathered and crested dinos, that level of speculation is only done because the people drawing it wanted it to be that way. It's a filter.
Seems like they want to portray dinosaurs as lame and uninteresting as possible, they all have lips and feathers for some reason. Most theropods didn't had any feathers and the lips "theory" is bullshit, does crocodiles have lips? No. So why would dinosaurs have them?
What about lips and feathers makes them >lame and uninteresting
?
It's just different from earlier interpretations, that's literally it. I think the feathers on massive animals for which there's only evidence to the contrary is BS personally, but lips seems fairly likely when you compare them to lizards, which are their closest extant relatives that still have the combination of teeth/no beak/primarily land animal, and the practical value of lips in those circumstances.
Lips hide the teeths and feathers make them looks like "le funny oversized dangerous chicken", the only theropods with feathers are dromaeosaurids but most modern paleoartists wants to add them everywhere for the sake of novelty and to be noticed as an artist.
But hiding the teef is pretty much the standard thing among land animals anon, think of it more like a monitor lizard. They manage to look plenty dangerous and predatory.
That said, I agree that some are way too liberal with the feathers. Applying them to animals from the Triassic and even early Jurassic seems a stretch, and I can't imagine a creature larger than an elephant having much use for them at all.
As for: >le funny oversized chicken
It's going to look far more like a deadly, terrifying ground-based eagle with a snarling maw than any sort of poultry, except maybe the already-cute smaller animals. See pic related, like that wouldn't put a tiger or a grizzly to shame for a pant-shitting, even if it was behind plexiglass at some zoo somewhere.
those are all aquatic representatives of mostly terrestrial clades, not fucking Water Bitches Percent One Hundred like crocodilians
[...]
yeah that's how inference works. maybe find a complete skeleton if you want to supersede basic logic
https://i.imgur.com/523II5F.jpg
[...]
[...]
are people seriously in some weird "all dinosaurs had feathers" vs "no dinosaurs had feathers" dichotomy? cause that's kinda retarded.
most raptors and small dromeosaurs had feathers, I thought it was well known, I thought the thing people argued about was just tyrannosaurus, which it's looking more and more like it didn't
yeah there are absolute retards on both sides. i personally subscribe to the idea that T. rex had some light feathers as juveniles and elephantine fuzz as adults but I'm not schizo enough to insist that like carnosaurs must have been feathered
Sea snakes are fully aquatic and can barely move on land. Also, there have been several terrestrial crocodiles in the past and some modern ones can spend a lot of time out of the water.
>Sea snakes are fully aquatic and can barely move on land
Depends on the species. Plenty of sea snakes regularly crawl on to land and there’s loads of fully terrestrial species
reminder that paleoschizo does actually think theropods had lips(just not full lips) but he knows nobody will participate in his shitty threads if doesn’t post this bait every single time.
are people seriously in some weird "all dinosaurs had feathers" vs "no dinosaurs had feathers" dichotomy? cause that's kinda retarded.
most raptors and small dromeosaurs had feathers, I thought it was well known, I thought the thing people argued about was just tyrannosaurus, which it's looking more and more like it didn't
>are people seriously in some weird "all dinosaurs had feathers" vs "no dinosaurs had feathers" dichotomy? cause that's kinda retarded.
Found le the le fence le sitter!
"no dinosaurs have feathers" is much easier to understand than "all dinosaurs had feathers".
People getting attached to modern pop culture dinosaurs and getting dismayed when they're giant chickens is understandable.
But the ones who insist the all-feathers position have much flimsier ground to justify it, like Trey the Explainer
dinosaurs are fictional creatures so it doesn't really matter how you draw them
What went wrong?
Spoiler: Reddit.
WHAT IS HE!?
Dinosaurs all had feathers, lips and beaks.
They live rent free in your head, they make money and art while you seethe and cry. You are so pathetic.
>sinophobic
Lel
Next you'll call people crimephobic for disliking robberies
I accept your concession.
k, b.
>someone got paid millions to make shit up from a bunch of bones
>Hollywood then made a bunch of movies about it to make it into a cultural phenomenon
>WE'RE PROGRESSING AS A SPECIES MUCH ACADEMIC SUCH STUDIES
I fucking hate people.
Dinosaurs were reasonably well characterized before Hollywood got ahold of them, and they were discovered in the first place by English, Christian, natural historians - you know, the kind of men who built White civilization.
Meanwhile retarded Amerimutts reject this exhaustive, hard earned science (their own knowledge of which is limited to a few skimmed Wikipedia articles and dimly remembered childhood trips to museums). Why? Anything contrarian is "red-pilled", and gives them a sense of superiority which would otherwise be impossible to find in their worthless, garden gnomed existence.
the kind of men who put a claw on the tip of a giant lizard's nose...
They built the foundation for what we know now, moron.
Muscle insertion scars, comparison to extant species, soft tissue traces in lagerstatte. You have an incredibly superficial level of knowledge and think you're smarter than the thousands of white scientists and engineers who built the world around you. What are you, some mutt who works at Wallmart, or a full blown NEET?
Calm down.
>What are you, some mutt who works at Wallmart, or a full blown NEET?
Someone who can spell Walmart, you fucking git.
>soft tissue traces in lagerstatte.
Doesn't account for the possibility of additional soft tissues that weren't preserved successfully.
T-rexes could've had dicks on their noses, and you wouldn't know it.
>Doesn't account for the possibility
sure it does
lots of things are possible but so fucking unlikely that we can dismiss them. That is accounting for the possibility.
It's possible you're a genius but it's really fucking unlikely so I can both account for the possibility and dismiss it at the same time.
>lots of things are possible but so fucking unlikely that we can dismiss them.
By what metric does it seem likely to you that a perfectly intact specimen of any of these fucking things was preserved in its entirety via fossilization?
God you're a fucking retard. have a nice day.
>reasonably well characterized
You unironically can't figure out what something looked like just from its skeleton. If you applied the same manner of educated guessing they used for dinosaurs to this fucking thing, you'd get a retarded-looking, big-tittied alligator, not an orca. You probably wouldn't even know that it had a fucking dorsal fin, unless there's some kind of weird structure in the spine for it.
Oh no, it's a ginger! Kill it before it lays eggs!
...
But remember when and where this was discovered. And how for a full century there was almost nothing like it until - suddenly - China.
Does anyone else believe that schizophrenics like and their idiotic "conspiracies" are tacitly promoted by glowies in order to discredit genuine concerns about cover-ups? Both this and flat earth garbage for example are based on the idea that someone would waste tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars in order to hide and obfuscate the truth about something that is so utterly irrelevant to the average person's life and that isn't even tangentially related to politics. If such ideas exist and are the first thing that come to mind when the average person thinks of "conspiracy", then it works perfectly as a way of discrediting anything that implies the government/international elites have been hiding things from the general populace.
Yes, absolutely for flat earth, moon landings faked - especially in the latter case, as in addition to "poisoning the well" it acts as demoralization propaganda among those who believe it.
However, this kind of bullshit is probably too obscure for the glowies to be pushing, so it's likely just schizo boomers who seethe at any reconstruction of a dinosaur that doesn't look like their Jurassic Park collectables.
>"muh dinosaurs aren't cool movie monsters like my childhood I hate them being actual animals"
You shills have already run this talking point into the ground.
Ok gay.
When the fuck is the Dueling Dinosaur fossil gonna release? Its supposed to be this year right?
More skin impressions so we can put this to rest once and for all
what's the blue thing on his nose?
tactical grip for optimal snout rubs by neolithic men
This is what T. rex looked like and nothing short of irrefutable paleontological evidence can convince me otherwise.
you'll be happy to hear no evidence for t-rex feathers has ever been found, no fossils, no quill knobs, literally nothing.
meanwhile we have impressions from multiple parts of the t-rex body that show bumpy mosaic scales, including from the tail, parts of the face, the neck, the legs...
paleo artist lately leave these parts bare and give them a weird feather cape, cause we have no impressions from the back yet so that must conveniently be the only place they had feathers, even though it makes 0 sense
at most, t-rex may have had some protofeather fuzz in a few places, like the whispey hairs elephants have.
In my personal experience browsing for paleoart, most stuff made after the 2010s puts no feathers on rexes.
That's a cool picture.
IS THAT??? IS THAT A??? OH MY GOD IS THAT A FEATHERED DINOSAUR?!?!?
AHHHHHH SAVE ME moronMAN I'M GOING INSANE!!!!!1!!
This is why you need to reject dinosaurs and join the Pseudosuchian master race. No feathers, all scales
it's not that hard to imagine, you fuckers never shut up about it
>new jurassic park has worse graphics than the old
But tyrannosaurus is safe from that bullshit now, the 2010s dark age of feathered rex is over.
It isn't.
jw trying to make a more accurate t.rex by giving it feathers and making it less accurate than their normal rex is pretty funny idk
Mullet Rex is a lot better than the giant chicken drawings we were getting ten years ago
>Adds feathers (wrong)
>Still Mr. Skeletal (also wrong)
What were they thinking?
love how 2/3 of its weight is in front of its legs, makes so much sense
Gravity worked diferently back then
Gravity hadn't fully evolved by then, that's why birds were evolving feathers to defy it
>2/3 of its volume
It doesn't even look like that in-game.
If the genes for feathered reptiles exists even in crocodiles, why we don't portray the old ones with feather? since all dinos are portrayed with feather now?
>all dinos
No they're not. Random internet artists drawing them for fun doesn't count
>If the genes for feathered reptiles exists even in crocodiles, why we don't portray the old ones with feather?
Because paleoartists have to find it interesting or monetarily viable first. Just like people complaining about elaborately feathered and crested dinos, that level of speculation is only done because the people drawing it wanted it to be that way. It's a filter.
No, I understand your pain.
Paleoschizo, at least post something that looks bad.
Seems like they want to portray dinosaurs as lame and uninteresting as possible, they all have lips and feathers for some reason. Most theropods didn't had any feathers and the lips "theory" is bullshit, does crocodiles have lips? No. So why would dinosaurs have them?
>does crocodile have lips
i dont know does he
What about lips and feathers makes them
>lame and uninteresting
?
It's just different from earlier interpretations, that's literally it. I think the feathers on massive animals for which there's only evidence to the contrary is BS personally, but lips seems fairly likely when you compare them to lizards, which are their closest extant relatives that still have the combination of teeth/no beak/primarily land animal, and the practical value of lips in those circumstances.
Lips hide the teeths and feathers make them looks like "le funny oversized dangerous chicken", the only theropods with feathers are dromaeosaurids but most modern paleoartists wants to add them everywhere for the sake of novelty and to be noticed as an artist.
>"le funny oversized dangerous chicken"
you have to go back
>wahhhhhhhh animals don't look like muh epic hollygarden gnome movie props in real life
But hiding the teef is pretty much the standard thing among land animals anon, think of it more like a monitor lizard. They manage to look plenty dangerous and predatory.
That said, I agree that some are way too liberal with the feathers. Applying them to animals from the Triassic and even early Jurassic seems a stretch, and I can't imagine a creature larger than an elephant having much use for them at all.
As for:
>le funny oversized chicken
It's going to look far more like a deadly, terrifying ground-based eagle with a snarling maw than any sort of poultry, except maybe the already-cute smaller animals. See pic related, like that wouldn't put a tiger or a grizzly to shame for a pant-shitting, even if it was behind plexiglass at some zoo somewhere.
Looks cool
Looks cool
Looks bad
Looks bad
I like scales and feathers as long as the art's good. Simple as.
>does crocodiles have lips? No
Crocodiles live in water, you uneducated baboon moron.
So do marine iguanas, water monitors and sea snakes.
those are all aquatic representatives of mostly terrestrial clades, not fucking Water Bitches Percent One Hundred like crocodilians
yeah that's how inference works. maybe find a complete skeleton if you want to supersede basic logic
yeah there are absolute retards on both sides. i personally subscribe to the idea that T. rex had some light feathers as juveniles and elephantine fuzz as adults but I'm not schizo enough to insist that like carnosaurs must have been feathered
Sea snakes are fully aquatic and can barely move on land. Also, there have been several terrestrial crocodiles in the past and some modern ones can spend a lot of time out of the water.
>Sea snakes are fully aquatic and can barely move on land
Depends on the species. Plenty of sea snakes regularly crawl on to land and there’s loads of fully terrestrial species
>you uneducated baboon moron.
Why do we live rent free inside your mind? The anon you replied to probably isn't even black.
reminder that paleoschizo does actually think theropods had lips(just not full lips) but he knows nobody will participate in his shitty threads if doesn’t post this bait every single time.
the entire body should be covered in feathers
They should draw all dinosaurs as giant walking feathers just to piss off people like OP
>paleoart should be about pissing people off instead of portraying the truth!
This post is a microcosm of the attitude that got us here.
>muh childhood toys and movies
are people seriously in some weird "all dinosaurs had feathers" vs "no dinosaurs had feathers" dichotomy? cause that's kinda retarded.
most raptors and small dromeosaurs had feathers, I thought it was well known, I thought the thing people argued about was just tyrannosaurus, which it's looking more and more like it didn't
We live in a world with people more retarded than me somehow. They can drive and vote too
The culture war touches everything anon.
>are people seriously in some weird "all dinosaurs had feathers" vs "no dinosaurs had feathers" dichotomy? cause that's kinda retarded.
Found le the le fence le sitter!
BUT ANON MY JURASSIC PARKERINOS!!!!
"no dinosaurs have feathers" is much easier to understand than "all dinosaurs had feathers".
People getting attached to modern pop culture dinosaurs and getting dismayed when they're giant chickens is understandable.
But the ones who insist the all-feathers position have much flimsier ground to justify it, like Trey the Explainer
The world is only black and white anon, nothing can possibly be grey.
Braindead trend-chasing, lack of education, and the availability of posting platforms breed trully terrible "people".