It's much better than the Planet dinosaur spinosaurus. The Lost dinosaurs of egypt (this) and the Bizarre dinosaurs spinosaurus are the best spinosaurs!
not bad. Don't mean to critize too much, but you could've done the Spinosaur a little better: You could've made the animal a little more thinner, i've looked at a Spinosaurid skeleton and they're pretty thin: this one was a little on the thick side; did you base this on an older picture of the animal? I know this was your choice, but could you have done the Spinosaur in a different color, like a yellow/green overall, with a blue underbelly, plus black decorations and a colorful sail?
Well... I guess my trolling simpleton adversary is finally accepting defeat in both the actual argue and his trolling commenting. As expected, oh well, he never was the thinker.
Has anyone ever thought that maybe spino is actually a ouranosaurus which died with an ancient species of croc and just deteriorated together and when found they were either misunderstood or fraud o_O
It's clear spino didn't had the skull structure and power of today's crocs but it's still plausible as I read. Mean spino might not even be an actual dinosaur but rather a known herbivore and an unknown weak species of croc.
eh, idk if a full grown spinosaurus would be scared off by a lone Paralititan. it was probably almost as long 18-20 meters vs 24-26 ish) and probably half its weight 20 ish vs 40 tons. multiple Paralititans however..
@behemuth Um, spino was only around 55ft at tops and most believe it was less also a single paralititan would guarantee kill a delicate spino with little effort including that baby sauropod. Spino is actually proven to be 8-11tons at the most(rex was 7-10ton, just saying)
@Seltzer1Liter actually the largest remains have been estimated at 52-59 ft (16-18 meter) I'm just guesstimating that since we have but a handful of remains, a large individual could perhaps be as much as 20 meters. also i loled. t-rex is 5-7 tons (7 being the high estimate few believe to be true) with most estimates at 6 tons for a 40 ish foot individual.
Spinosaurus by scaling up relatives which have a much more slender build already suggests 14+ tons. 18-20 tons is not considered wrong.
@behemuth No that's too high, never has there been a spino actually even 60ft but rather 55ft but judging on references to ancestries and the size and amount of its expect vertebras most are even claiming less then that as in 51ft at the logically most but 55ft is still somewhat valid and 8 to 11 ton at the most(a theropod couldn't possible handle such weight especially on 2 legs) while rex is around 45ft long while being 7 to 10 tons at the most(you can find that info anywhere these days)
Also, t-rex is still considered to be 42 ft max, the supposed larger specimens have yet to be included in any notible papers. and no t-rex could ever be 10 tons. the estimate is 5-7. don't make up facts or believe the dubious ones because you happen to agree with them. and the 14t + weight is by upscaling more slender relatives. if spino was partly quadruped, then weight should not b a issue
@behemuth Sorry my friend but 59ft was just suggested at the time of 2001but proven false when actually looked at and referenced to its closest ancestors such as sucho with the size and amount of its expect vertebras leading 51ft to 55ft and 14tons is 2001 monsters reconstructed estimation which is wrong and actually 11 at tops as for that's too much even for spino unless that spin is a hump which is false.
You've obviously gotten most of that from wiki which does have a blue edit button
And yes there have several rexes found to be 43.5ft, 44.8ft and even 45ft long through out the last decade. You can find this info anywhere including the latest rex documentaries and also rex is officially 7 to 10 tons at max as well not only basted on size but musculature, design and structure.
@Seltzer1Liter unless you're a moron, you should know that reading the sources on wikipedia (not what is written in the wiki, as it is a subjective summary at best from the source) you get good info. Finding up to date peer reviewed articles is hard. Wikipedia is usually updated first since many editors of wikipedia are the ones who have accsess to the peer reviewed articles. Also, monsters resurrected is from 2009... and it was Dal Sasso who based on his findings in 2005 (a new specimen) cont.
@behemuth ONLY wiki mentions spino being 59ft and even they and monsters reconstructed and that newer spino documentary said that's just a suggestion as every where else. Monsters Resurrected was UPLOADED on you tube at 2009 but broad cast at 2001, I guess people realize they were allowing it if not just remembered of its existence. Easy on the insults, I'm just an informer not a antagonist. The newest documentary for spino came out just last weak where they prove spino to be a fish eater
@Seltzer1Liter oh sweet jebus... are you retarded? do you check anything before you claim it? check the wiki page or even home page of monsters resurected and you find it premiered in 2009... considering the holotype that cast light on spino being possibly 59 ft long was found in 2005... so how could a 2001 program claim this? you a willful liar or a moron?| Also, use the SOURCES cited on wikipedia, thats up to date, you know... peer reviewed journals and the like... also:
@behemuth Spino's main diat is fish but would go after smaller dinos if given the chance and scavenge of on carcharodontosaurus when the dought kicked in. It's because of its lacking abilities to hunt on land was forced to scavenge off carcharodontosaurus which caused its extinction.
@Seltzer1Liter (i love how you never even apologized or tried to cover up that moronic 2001 monsters resurrected claim of yours... figured out that you were mistaken after claiming to be right multiple times? yeah google is a marvelous thing, when you use it...)
You claim yet again it lacked abilities to hunt on land, incredible, since we know next to nothing about spino, yet you even claim to know why it died out. moronic. we base most of spino on its better known cousins you know...
@behemuth Look up planet spino. It's the newest documentary series, in fact it just started 1 1/2 weeks ago. they were saying that spino lived several miles away from carch at a mangrove area where spino stood over water just to eat fish and can swim across the rivers with little to no competition. Which is why they've grown larger but as I said before the drought kicked in making fish less abundant and sarcosuchus terrified spino away from what's left while carch was too much of a match.
@behemuth Look up planet spino. It's the newest documentary series, in fact it just started 1 1/2 weeks ago. they were saying that spino lived several miles away from carch at a mangrove area where spino stood over water just to eat fish and can swim across the rivers with little to no competition. Which is why they've grown larger but as I said before the drought kicked in making fish less abundant and sarcosuchus terrified spino away from what's left while carch was too much of a match.
@Seltzer1Liter Remember, aside from the gargantuan paralititan, there were no other large sized prey on land, not even in the 3-10 ton range. while spino could take out a young adolescent paralititan by its self, that would be hard when they were herd animals. if there is a reason it did not hunt large animals then this was it. It did however, share habitat with carcharodontosaurus and a 40ft croc, yet it evolved to great size, a dominated predator does not evolve larger...
@behemuth It's guarantee no sauropod hunter. Despite everyone online mentioning it can barely even take on medium sized prey, that documentary used factual evidence to prove and show how that was true. Its intire evolutionary design is just too much into swiming and catching fish over water like a stork made it completely bias to hunting on land and it's very un flexible, slow, cautious, weak jaws, claws can barely inflict fatal damage to their thick hides except to thin fishes.
@Seltzer1Liter spinosaurus was one of largest animal in its area and time... of the top of my head, only parlatitan were larger than it, and put side by side, it was not grossly out sizing it. (a 18 meter spino next to a 24-26 meter parlatitan)
evidence suggests that spino had a stronger skull and bite than its relatives, heavier bones and very deep rooted teeth. that it may have hunted fish may well be true, however to say it hunted nothing else... thats just silly.
@behemuth Actually spino had a delicate skull and its teeth weren't all that deep rooted at all, in fact they were just pointed spearing teeth that were also hollowed. Spino was also estimated to have the weakest bite of all the large theropods due to overly elongated narrow snout with relatively small jaws and the teeth of course. Spino was also the least flexible, agile and extremely slow with far more vulnerabilities such as its back. Saying a spino didn't eat and small dinos is preposterous.
@behemuth Spino actually had a weak overly elongated narrow skull and relatively small jaws. Its teeth weren't all that rooted, also spino had pointed spearing teeth which were also hollow, because of these factors it's known to have the weakest bit of all the large theropods. Spino was also too delicate and lacks mobility. It's also the least flexible, agile and slowest as well bast on factual evidence. To say spino ate anything other then small dinos and mainly fish is just preposterous.
I also forgot to mention the fact spino has too many vulnerabilities such as longer narrow neck, delicate build and of cause its most flawed design, it sail which also concludes that logically spino would be too cautious and frightful to even attempt hunting even baby sauropods and even alerted duck bills but possible their young if not protected. It's the main reason why when the droughts kicked in spino died out because fish was no longer abundant and it's completely bias on land, thus death
@Seltzer1Liter The teeth were well rooted.. and as for the shape of the skull, if it were weak or not, too narrow or too long... in the end it seamed to work, spinosaurus was a successful predator in its time. there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
And bite force is not measured based on the teeth or width of the jaws you ignorant child, it is based on the size of the muscle attachments to name one. not teeth. it's bite is not considered weak at all, educate yourself.
@behemuth The teeth were up to 5in to 5 1/2in at the most, that's not well rooted and they were very hollowed so obviously and logically they would snap off if used for other prey besides fish and small dinos. Not only can't the teeth possible withstand such a bite and the overly elongated snout that was narrow but the jaws being too narrow, slender and relatively small thus leading to a obvious weak bite as all the factors are clearly stating. Knowledge is power kiddo as I display.
@Seltzer1Liter did you even watch the documentary yourself? spino was pulling out what looked like saw sharks 6-7 meters or more in length... if its teeth could withstand that, it would withstand killing medium sized terrestrial prey or warding of charach. or giant crocodilians.
obvious weak bite? i just educated you that that has no bearing on bite strength... would you pay attention? why don't you do some individual research on how bite force is determined from fossils before screw up again.
@behemuth It was its teeth and neck that allowed it to catch the fish not jaw power, they didn't even did much,in fact even they said its jaws weren't much.Also fish tissues are different from that of reptiles/birds. Also that fish couldn't make much of a resistance like medium dinos can,lastly they clearly portrayed spino as incapable to face medium dino due to it logical lumbering, slow and frightfulness of breaking its sail but possible if they're unaware. All you said was exactly what I said
@Seltzer1Liter and you disproved what i wrote how? i said that its teeth withstood it, and then you say it was its teeth and neck, not its jaw power... well i never said anything about jaw power in that regard. however i went on to say that you do not understand what it is that produce biting power, since you think the thickness of the skull and shape of the teeth somehow produce bite force..
The documentary even had a starved spino chase of a grown charac...
@Seltzer1Liter and you disproved what i wrote how? i said that its teeth withstood it, and then you say it was its teeth and neck, not its jaw power... well i never said anything about jaw power in that regard. however i went on to say that you do not understand what it is that produce biting power, since you think the thickness of the skull and shape of the teeth somehow produce bite force..
The documentary even had a starved spino chase of a grown charac...
@behemuth You were saying it's a sauropod hunter then mentioned if it could attack that fish, it mush of had powerful jaws which is false, how did you get lost in the conversation? Also the way the spino picked it up wouldn't break its teeth as easily but due to their bridal structure they've broken off before which they found on these species of fish and small dino, how did you possible missed it? Spino only one the fight because its opponent had a weak skull and design, I said that many times
@Seltzer1Liter do you even read what i write? i said it must have had strong teeth (read deep rooted)
YOU said i said i meant jaws for some reason. not that i think it had weak jaws, but i was talking about its teeth. so it is not i who i lost, it is you who still can't separate what you wish i would say from what i am actually saying.
also you haver not said any of the sort "many times" stop lying. we have yet to discuss charac. point being that if it dared to take on charac, then saying
@behemuth I read everything you wrote and yes you were mentioning about its jaws strength bast on that fish which isn't how it works at all and the teeth have been broken due to it, in fact that's part on why it's factual(the hollowed teeth were found). It's the WAY it cough the fish that' completely different then if it were to attack medium dinos that's can resist and pull out its teeth.
"if its teeth could withstand that, it would withstand killing medium sized terrestrial prey or warding of charach. or giant crocodilians."
where in that passage did i mention jaw strength? i were talking about its teeth, about how well rooted they were. because i was responding to your claim. to quote what you said:
"very hollowed so obviously and logically they would snap off if used for other prey besides fish and small dinos"
@Seltzer1Liter uh hu, even though the spino had a 8 meter 2-3 ton shark struggling in its mouth, which in your world exerts LESS force than a 3 ton ouranosaurus squirming on the ground? less to such an extent that it would go from no risk of teeth loss to certain teeth loss? Never mind the fact that against an ouranosaurus, spino could restrain it, reducing the force of it squirming by stepping on it, or hooking its claws into it.
@behemuth The fish barely struggled and that theory is so blatantly inaccurate. It was able to hold it with its neck and held it by its side where it has no defense and can't pull out. Ouranosaurus or other medium dino however actually can make more of a resistance with much more force and pull out spino's hollowed teeth especially when they're stronger, harder and heaver then some pretty much helpless fish. Seriously, how don't you get this? Am I being trolled or something?
@behemuth Wow, you keep applying the exact basic statements -_-
Spino snatched the fish by surprise on its sides(it had no defenses there) then immediately dropped on the ground far enough from the water(it just flopped helplessly) then spino put its foot on its back(no it can't even flop and can't resist at all) then kills it. That tactic is futile against a much larger, heaver, faster and stronger(in comparison to the fish) medium dino on land with legs.
@Seltzer1Liter that it would not dare to take on a herbivore is utter nonsense. its a direct contradiction. so get your arguments straight you furnace bellow.
@behemuth I also already explained that to before. It's called desperation because it couldn't even catch medium dinos such as ouranosaurus but eventually it was forced to make risks(big difference). It's why some jackals(not from halo...) go through desperation to eat the food of jagwars or better example as I used, hyenas taking food off of lions.
@Seltzer1Liter it would not hunt them because they were depicted as bing in open ground, and spino was depicted as weakened by hunger and thirst. chasing them would be a risky gamble of energy. point remains that YOU claimed it would not dare to attack ouranosaurus, not that it would not be able to do so due to their speed. which is why i said it would dare, since it dared to chase of a grown charac. for a carcass. get your own claims right...
@Seltzer1Liter@Seltzer1Liter Btw, i just watched the planet dinosaur documentary... which you praise... it portrays spinosaurus as a hunter of oranosaurs, which could be called medium-large herbivores...
(the part i just watched, the spinosaurs did not go after them as it had other plans, but the narrator says that they are but safe for the time being. implying a hunter prey relationship..)
They clearly stated spino's main diat was fish and possible small dinos if given the chance. Ouranosaurus were just the best spino could do but can barely catch them as for its slow, frightful and wouldn't dare attack one face on but possible their babies if not protected. Not quite a glorious predator prey relationship. I love this documentary because they're finally using the logical factual spino rather then reconstructed's.
@Seltzer1Liter just the best spino could do? the only larger herbovore in its habitat was a titanosaur... parlatitan... if it could maul a 8 meter saw shark to death, a 8 meter ouranosaurus would be no different, assuming of course it could catch one. the intro of the show, none the less presented the notion that spinosaurus was a predator of the animals during the drought seasons when waterlevels declined.
If a spino dared to chase of a grown charac, then it is stupid to say it would not dare
@behemuth Wow, are you kidding me, how many times must I say and explain with factual evidence on how and why spino isn't a sauropod hunter. Not not how it works... he grabbed it by its side where it's vulnerable then dropped it on the ground to take full advantage due to unable to fight back, sauropods are impossible for spino to do the same with and would easily eliminate spino. Even they mentioned its frightfulness as obviously expected
It's called desperation, hyenas do it too with lions.
@Seltzer1Liter again with the moronic tactics... you still putting words in my mouth? when did i say it could take on sauropods? last i checked, ouranosaurus is not a sauropod, so unless you don't even know your dino 101 you're saying that i think spino hunted parlatitan...
As for the charac. fight, don't mess with the details of the fight... that was a reconstruction, we have no idea how it would have happened. point being the clever heads who write the script deemed spino capable.
@behemuth "just the best spino could do? the only larger herbovore in its habitat was a titanosaur... parlatitan" just to mention one of many times you've called it a sauropod hunter. Clearly you're either oblivious to your own context, suffering from an extremely short attention span or tying to turn things around at this pointless state, how pathetically childish, it's quite saddening -_-
They said it's a specialist when it came to fish but can also eat small dino if given the chance.
@Seltzer1Liter so, you misunderstood me, how is that my fault? it is your own fault, it is called a confirmation bias. you were looking for evidence to support your own preconceptions. so you misunderstood what i wrote.
Now try and understand you moron. you said it was the best it could do, yet the only larger animal was a titanosaur. which is obviously out of the menu. so by saying "best it could do" you suggest its a weak animal for not hunting those huge sauropods. so you're the moron here
@behemuth I just quoted your exact context, clearly you are ignorantly inferior to have an intellect that can't even contain the data of your own context. Also that was just one of at least 6 times. How childish to pathetically go through denial when they're on several pages -_-
@Seltzer1Liter YOU STILL DON'T GET IT?? what the holy ... i just explained it to you... WHY? are you trolling me? i doubt anyone is this dumb.... and if you are trolling, you're trying too hard.
@behemuth I don't even think you've even acknowledged your own context. You're commenting me daily with bizzare and false statement after I've straight forwardly explained and then ask the exact same trivial questions again and again, by all means you're the only one showing characteristics of trolling. I'm just a knowledgeable guy who knows what is fact from fiction unlike yourself. Also if you're going to say something, please remember the fact you've wrote it -_-
@Seltzer1Liter i'm not asking the same questions, you are the one who aint getting it. you're saying the same thing (again and again) when i'm trying to explain to you that you missunderstood the question thus your answer is invalid. but you're too stupid to get it. dense brat... and i do remember, you just seam to think that when i write A i mean B, even though i say no, i wrote A and meant A. you refuse to listen and instead call me a liar.
@behemuth I answered your questions, statements, theories... just right after you basically bring it right back in whole and yes the answer is going to be the same(it's not like if you add 1 to 5 it's going to 75 after the time). You never even attempted to ask beyond the usual you've been mindlessly presenting over and over, just simply ranting on the something. Actually as far as these clear buffoonish multi parallel questions are coming to me daily, you must be trolling, you're failing -_-
@Seltzer1Liter and i'm suprised i have to point this out, again, since i just explained it. i never suggested spino hunted parlatitan, i was reacting to what you said, that ouranosaurus was the largest dinosaur spino could hunt. and i reacted by noting that the only larger herbivore we know of there was a dinosaur that was out of reach by any theropod. (barring a pack of giganotosaurus) so why would you talk down on the animal saying ouranosaurus was the best it could do?
@Seltzer1Liter listen childe, that you do not have the mental capacity to understand what people write without trying to morph it into something you do understand (your own flawed perception of what i correct and thusly what everyone who disagrees with you MUST by necessity mean) does not mean the one in the wrong is me.
You're clearly a kid... i understand that now, probably a tween or 13 year old childe. i pitty your parents.
@behemuth You can't even spell CHILD right(you've spelled "childe" several times at different points in a large comment, no coincident there)... no wonder why you're so ignorantly hard headed while asking the exact same questions over and over daily.
You're so delusional and contradict to yourself.How saddening -_-
@Seltzer1Liter again, you show what a moron you are... childe is a old way of writing child. meaning the child of prosperous parents who have yet to prove himself. in this modern age, it can be used as a term fro a kid who have been brough up in good standings, but is unable to make anything of himself in spite of his upbringing.
Now stop writing to me, all you ever write is moronic drivel you paste a "this is fact" at the end of.
@behemuth "childe" From the muti grammatical errors you present, it's more then likely you just simply made more inane grammatical errors then a European middle age's way of saying child. That's just the logical thing to think when such factors are in place, for even thinking otherwise only helps to prove you truly lack an intellect. I've proved my self more then enough, in fact you're still trying to turn things around at your falling state and repeating statements. You're writing to me daily.
@behemuth I've gladly explained my case while you've done nothing but lashed insults, gave bizarre statements(that I've answered), and been you've been the only snobbish arrogant child here. And you're "replying" to me from the next day more then 16 or more hours latter after last night, proving me right again and wasn't it you who said last night was your last comment to me? -_-
Clearly too young to acknowledge what's a man's word.
@behemuth I hope this is the last you say as for your daily arguing has lead to a futile contradicting delusional arrogance and false statements(which I answer, again nd again while using factual evidence) to the point where you've not only basically, obliviously but full awareness(possible) in agreeing with my prove statements(spino is not a sauropod hunter, mainly ate fish, slow and lumbering, 55ft is the most factual estimate, etc) Either you're truly hard headed delusional or just moronic.
@Seltzer1Liter no, you missunderstand and repeat yourself daily. i try to make you understand by explaining it in detail. but you're too stuck up to understand it. you're just a self absorbed moron. who denies evidence and make up excuses. i'm though with you, as i've realized i've been arguing with a snotty child.
@behemuth No, you just keep bring the exact same parallel statements over and over which results to a basic same answer(as I mentioned before, it's not like if you add 1 to 5 it's going to 8 through time) as in if it's going to be the same, it'll receive the SAME answer. You've never explained anything just brought up more questions. I've already explain everything that you've asked, stated and needed to know in a educated, clear and polite matter. You're still the only one in delusional denial
@behemuth "lol, still talking? i'm done with you. or are you going to write again? i'll just laugh at you until you stop"
Because you lost with nothing else to say in your dead end down fall and this is the only way to at least feel a delusion passage of false victory due to desperation and literally proving my statements. Face it kid, you've been dispatched but even thought either way You've lost,then surrendered I myself don't need to reply,the war is won but I'm more then happy to reply :)
@Seltzer1Liter Nah, i just realized in the end, all you ever said where "No you" to my responses. it tired me so i've had enough of you. now i can see you're still talking. allow me to laugh harder
@behemuth None of my comments were bast on "no you" comments. Scrapping the bottom of the barrel again uh.
Face it, you have nothing and I can stop because this thing you just started in an act of desperation is a signified sign of your defeat and a complete different subject. "allow me to laugh harder" yes, go do, lets both laugh at your decimation and that's just pure historical :)
@Seltzer1Liter no, you're just too stuck up and stupid to see it. again. also i'm not reading the rest of your drivel. thank you for wasting even more time here. not that i think your time can be wasted. keep entertaining me child. i'm having a blast now :P
@behemuth Yeah I know, you're fail attempts of arguing against me only lead to your down fall and also proving me right and now through desperation to start a new bast argue or TROLL in this case. Seeing how this whole time it's now just you trying to shut me up, I'll gladly reply, because it angers you :)
Face it even your trolling last resort only makes me all the more powerful and superior while also presenting to be eons more intelligent :)
@behemuth So... I've successfully proven my case, you've basically agreed me, you've lost and kept on repeating yourself as a last resort, I've out witted you in both the argue and your try hard fail attempt at trolling me due to your desperation from a lost argue.
I guess I won the war and you're saddening bonus troll battle for a meager delusional feel of victory, yet you even failed at that. Face it, I'm just a far more superior well educated human being compared to your buffoonery -_-
@Seltzer1Liter Nah brah, just that after trying to explain to you countless times that you did not understand what i wrote/meant, yet you still did not want to listen, and kept on saying the same thing (your misinterpretation of what i said) i just had enough. i realized you're too stuck up/stubborn or just plain stupid to waste my time on. so thinking back its all pretty hilarious. hence why i'm now having a good time.
@behemuth Actually, if you read the comments, you never explained anything but, rather the overuse, I'm explaining thing to you while you bring them beck up daily.... I'm more then glade to educate a simpleton like you but you have to learn how to focused. In fact, I've given polite and mature well educated responses, while you on the other hand give insult like a mad child... you're sadly contradictive.
You're just crapping the barrel, you fail at this new troll conflict, and it's fun :)
I really don't see why you can't just mature and see what an awful troll you are to the saddening point where it's now you still back against the wall. Face it, you're completely eliminated.... either way you look at it :)
I'm just smarter and more knowledgeable then a simpleton like you :)
Scrap and scrap the bottom of that barrel, you still have nothing but worthless insults.... the war and the extra battle... is won.
@behemuth Hmm, clearly you don't know the definition of "hypocrisy"... I didn't expect you to. Well I know I won the argue in every aspect possible and unraveled this new troll commenting you've composted to shut me up for a delusional pitiful feel of false victory... I'll keep writing because t clearly angers you, to hear the more wise words of a more superior adversary.
It's actually quite amusing to see you squirm in your defeat... war is still on, and pretty much this meager battle :)
@Seltzer1Liter this made it even funnier, didn't i just say you were oblivious as to your hypocrisy? maybe thats why you did not get it. you did the exact same things you accuse me of. that you do not get it does not surprise me. it is why i stopped trying to argue with you. you never got it. no matter how i tried to explain it, you were just unable to understand. so i stopped trying and am now having a blast watching you try try try to antagonize me. its hilarious : D
@behemuth Well you are as flat as a wall and simple. That was a perfect response but it's exquisite to see what a fool you are XD Clearly you're not into reading nor too familiar with context and fine literature. I keep on because not only does it angers you, I defeated you, but this proves my superior intellect over you :D
Always listen to your teachers, as if you do. Wow this is so fun to see your squirming anger, it's delicious especially when you do it daily to remind me of my victories :)
@Seltzer1Liter nah brah, prooving yourself a moron does not equal defeating me. defeating me would be having me continue to argue the same things to you while you continue to ignore what i say while repeating yourself. i won by being the first to conclude the futility of the argument.
but by all means, if you think you've won and it makes you happy, i won't argue, just another thing for me to laugh about.
@behemuth Aw, exactly 24hrs after your last commented, how sad yet prove me right again... it's actually a testament of your solid defeat and your sore losing raging anger due to your childish blatant arrogance(the obvious words of a desperate kid falling deeper) :)
*It's what even keeps me in complete control even to your trolling commenting* :)
It makes me happy you're still as predictable like a child and the war of the argument is won due to my superior knowledge and and factual evidence.
@Seltzer1Liter not gonna read what you wrote, just gonna let you know that you're still trying to win when you lost ages ago. No one is dumb enough to argue with the wall for an hour, then get pissed at the wall because it did not concede. rather i'd laugh at myself for ever arguing with a wall.
so why are you still talking? you never said anything smart to begin with, why are you still trying.
(and if you reply to this, it means you read it all, so allow me to laugh about that too)
@behemuth "not gonna read what you wrote" Not like you have which is you major problem. I reply because you want to shut me up since you couldn't win your battles through knowledge unlike myself. All in all, I've won the argue and even you stared to agree with what I said while your other statements and argue were to a pointless state. It's been won long ago, I'm just having fun with your immature motive to shut me up, watching you crumble some more :)
@behemuth Then why are you replying every 24hrs? clearly each set of comments are within 12hrs apart, not within AN hour. Also if you read the comments, you did agree with him at just about everything he said, repeated yourself several times, then when you pretty much lost surrendered a week ago.
*It not a sauropod hunter*
This isn't even an argue, it's just you trying to get back at him through trolling, just inform you, he's turn that around and is still winning. Why do you continue?
@condemned6436 Yeah, he's been writing back to me daily(each comment literally 24hrs apart) due to his immature snobbish arrogance ever since his swirling crash, he was even agreeing with everything I said and kept repeating himself, his argues were at a futile and doltish state of worthlessness as I would politely answer educating with factual evidence. He's still going through his try hard fail attempts to turns things around for a delusional false feel of somewhat victory. Saddening but fun.
@behemuth "lol still there?" Wow, waited tile the next day to say that? aw, the desperate from a crumbling child. Saddening yet pleasingly enthralling and humorist :)
It's saddening you write every 24hrs to remind me of my victories and make an even bigger buffoon out of yourself then prior. Yet again a fin testament of your defeat even to your blatant trolling :)
@behemuth Then why are you replying every 24hrs? clearly each set of comments are within 12hrs apart, not within AN hour. Also if you read the comments, you did agree with him at just about everything he said, repeated yourself several times, then when you pretty much lost surrendered a week ago.
*It not a sauropod hunter*
This isn't even an argue, it's just you trying to get back at him through trolling, just inform you, he's turn that around and is still winning. Why do you continue?
@behemuth You guys are basically agreeing with each other. We all know spino wasn't able to hunt down sauropods, wasn't anything like monsters resurrected and was a badly wrong, mainly ate fish if not smaller dinos on the side, was around 55 feet, spino's arms aren't invisible nor even nearly as effective as little kids are exaggerating and had hollowed teeth. I don't know everything on dinos but enough with the arguing.
@AwesomeFace42 i wish i could, but the child is unable to understand what i write to him, and instead claims i meant something else. Like not understanding how squares on a comparison chart can be used to gauge the size of the animal when it has a human in there for comparison. there is too many to write in not one, or three posts... but he tires me, the kid is... incredibly dense.
@behemuth Clearly it wasn't even capable to attack adult ouranosaurus and when they said "They're safe for now" they were clearly referring to the carch attack soon after, even when up close, spino's frightfulness prevent it to even dare attack unless it's a baby unprotected.
@Seltzer1Liter you a moron? you're saying that the group of ouranosaurus spino encountered at the beginning is the same that encountered charac. later in the show? despite the show making a point of showing on a map the different regions they inhabited? you just sound like a person grasping for straws, the narrator meant that spino had other plans in mind (the season was in for sawsharks, so it was headed there, ignoring them) you're the one making stuff up to fit your perceptions... ugh,..
@behemuth No you're just clearly going desperate, even when the drought kicked in and spino was up close it didn't attack unlike a more true hunter like carch which would. However their babies are easy pickings f not protected -_-
@Seltzer1Liter a true hunter? name one "true hunter" that charges a pack of herbivores when in plain sight out on a open field... during a drought when energy preserving is important.
charac hunted in the woods, using trees for cover. spino had his back to the desert... WHAT did you expect it to do? no predator would give chase in such situations.
@behemuth What I meant by true hunter is creatures that truly hunted large prey in order to survive and willing to take risks. Spino isn't that kind of dino(except through desperation of course)
@Seltzer1Liter You guys are basically agreeing with each other. We all know spino wasn't able to hunt down sauropods, wasn't anything like monsters resurrected and was a badly wrong, mainly ate fish if not smaller dinos on the side, was around 55 feet, spino's arms aren't invisible nor even nearly as effective as little kids are exaggerating and had hollowed teeth. I don't know everything on dinos but enough with the arguing.
@Seltzer1Liter You guys are basically agreeing with each other. We all know spino wasn't able to hunt down sauropods, wasn't anything like monsters resurrected and was a badly wrong, mainly ate fish if not smaller dinos on the side, was around 55 feet, spino's arms aren't invisible nor even nearly as effective as little kids are exaggerating and had hollowed teeth. I don't know everything on dinos but enough with the arguing.
@Seltzer1Liter now you're talking down on the animal again. you think a charach. could have hunted the sharks spino hunted? no, it would get injured trying. did the documentary suggest spino occationaly hunted ouranosaurus when its primary food source dwindled? yes it did.
did spino chase off a grown charach. in order to survive? yes. did it take a risk? yes. then what is the difference?`every hunt is one out of desperation, simply because a failed hunt could mean death. this applies for all.
@behemuth Carch doesn't have an overly elongated narrow snout and neck nor fish spearing teeth to possible catch fish so obviously NO, carch can't just catch fish but clearly not due to injuries just biology and anatomy. They never said it "occationaly hunted ouranosaurus when its primary food source dwindled"(occasionally), they said it can still find other prey on land such as smaller dinos which is why its desperation lead it to scavenge off of carch. Clearly you weren't listening
@Seltzer1Liter clearly you're reaching for straws again. the narrator said the oranousaurus where safe for now, cutting to spino arriving at its intended hunting ground. you refute this by saying it was foreshadowing (in a documentary...) them being hunted by charach. despite it living in a distant area.
nor did you accept your error in calling a true hunter one willing to take risks, even though spino were willing to take greater risks by chasing a charach off. you just ignored your error.
@behemuth "reaching for straws again" That's literally all you've been doing, even till this point I've already proven my case while even after all your daily commenting hasn't. You're even going so desperate that you're actually repeating the same old statements over and over. As far as you context shows, you've completely forgotten the concept of your pointless argues.
I've already explained on what a true hunter does and AGAIN spino went DESPERATE to SCAVENGE from CARCH(get it right ) -_-
@Seltzer1Liter This is the last i will say, because you must be fueled by stupendous amounts of Ritalin and retard ignorance and forgetfulness. you're unable to cite any sources, unable to educate yourself when challenged (like reading up and finding out that teeth and jaw width does not = bite force). unable to thoroughly read your opponents response without misunderstanding it... you're ether 10 years old, or have the mental capacity of one. now go and play with brightly colored toys.
@Seltzer1Liter lastly, there is something very very odd with the comparison pic they used on spinosaurus... the human were roughly 4 squares long. yet spino was 23 squares long... if we assume the human was 2 meters, then each square would be 0.5, which would make the spino in the scale 11.5 meters... yet it claims it was 17.
if we're more accurate and the human was 3.8 sq high and 1.8 meters tall, then each square is 0,47 meters and spino is 10.91 meters on that scale.. some docu btw..
@behemuth You're missing the point of the chart 0.0
the squares were actually quite pointless as for the scale image was too small and they've already given the straight forward estimate of their size which is very accurate and as even I said and you've basically admitted several times, 55ft is just the most valid, accurate and fair estimate. You're trying a bit too drastically desperate to nip pic on such a logical brand new documentary, it's actually saddening.
@Seltzer1Liter no, 55ft is the size they used in the documentary, as the median between the speculated 52-59 ft, which is the min-max estimates for the 2005 individual, not based on many specimens with sizes varying between 52-59 ft. if that was the case, the docu would have gone for 59 ft, just as it went for charac.s max size based of its largest well documented individual.
And no, the human was put on a scale with a 11 meter spino while the graph said it was 17. thats a 50%+ error.
@behemuth 55ft is found just about everywhere, in fact people been saying it years before that documentary. the reason why(for the 8th time) because there's literally nothing that supports the theoretical 59ft but more yet not enough either 51ft. So logically he most valid is still standing as 55ft since it's the most plausible, accurate, fair and proven to be size of all. I just explained that to you, the scale image was too small however they've already said its size and used factual evidence
@Seltzer1Liter sweet mother of... for the last time, we do not have enough remains of spino to pintpoint the EXACT size of the 2005 individual, hence the 52-59 ft estimation. to boldly claim 55ft based on a upper jaw and nearly no other remains of the individual is narrow minded and moronic. reason why people call 55 ft is because it is the median between 52 ft and 59 ft (rounded down) there is no other reason. why are you unable to get this? spinos size is 52-59 ft, not "55ft period".
@Seltzer1Liter What about you started having a critical eye too? i hated the monsters resurrected docu, i found this one enjoyable and more logical. but it had some flaws, like the graph size inconsistencies or that bony spines would be a vulnerable spot on a spinosaurus. Nor did they speculate if the broken spino came about when scavengers feasted upon the corpse, when the spines would have been exposed and weakened due to the low humidity post-mortem. it isnt saddening, it is educated thoughts
@behemuth As I said the chart was too small, the squares were pointless and they've already given the straight forward estimate of their size which is very accurate. The size was accurate, especially when they were next to each other unlike MR where carch was barely up to its shin so all in all the size is still very accurate. It's that the carch lost but as they were explain it was 50/50 for them and that was why.
@Seltzer1Liter the squares gave a means to measure the size compared to the human.. so no, not pointless, it is why i could tell the chart were grossly inaccurate for whatever reason. which is such an easy oversight.
they did not say it was a 50/50 split, it said it was a dangerous venture for both, considering the spino was starved and the charac was not, the split could not be 50/50 if it won in such a state. spino would also have the intimidation factor.
@behemuth Unbelievable, you can't be that slow, with all he factual evidence poring all over it you're saying it's false because the size chart that was only shown for less then a few seconds had a bit messed up squares? despite the fact they clarified that by writing the actual size and said through out the video around 2 to 4 times O_O
As even they clarified from the start of carch, it had a weak skull however spino has more vulnerabilities such as a sail, and they said it can go either way
@Seltzer1Liter you a moron? the comparison between the animal and the human was wrong. thats a rather glaring error. nothing more to say. now stop being such a moron.
And the docu never mentioned how the sail is a weakness. for starters, charac should be hard press to reach it. and it would be far far less vulnerable compared to any other point on its body. due to the minimal bloodloss and lack of vital organs (or any at all)
@behemuth No, the size was perfect, you're just too hard headed. It's a low budget documentary so the squares on the chart(that last for a 5secs) being a slight bit off is excusable especially when they've explained the actual size in writing and narrations. That is how big a spino looks next to humans and perfect size compared to other theropods unlike monsters reconstructed and they used factual evidence. The spino actually did died from its injury, how did you missed it.
@Seltzer1Liter oh holy mother of... HOW DENSE are you? the squares mean JACK except they made it possible for me to estimate the actual length of the model compared to the human model... which if we assume was 1.8 meters tall, would make the spino shown less than 11 meters, while it said it were 18 meters... sqares do not matter, an undersized model does... its supposed to compare the spino to a human and it failed at doing that. THAT IS all. stop being so... you.
I can't believe I'm explaining this to you for the 8th time -_-
It's a low budget documentary so the squares on the chart(that last for a 5secs) being a slight bit off is excusable especially when they've explained the actual size in writing and narrations(clearly saying 55ft as expected). That is how big a spino looks next to humans and perfect size compared to other theropods unlike monsters reconstructed and they used factual evidence
@Seltzer1Liter ... ME? really? FOR THE LAST TIME... the error is in the size of the human or spinosaurus. the squares does not matter you moron! the squares just makes it possible to estimate the size of the error.
@behemuth "the squares just makes it possible to estimate the size of the error" Despite the fact they the size of the spino was correct, the size of the spino referenced to other dinos such carch is accurate and yes 55ft is the most logical, plausible and fair estimate for spino's true size. Let alone they explained spino's actual size 2 to 4 times with narrations -_-
I'm just trying to explain to you these "issues" you're applying to much emphasis to.
@Seltzer1Liter why don't you try the method yourself, maybe you get it then. the human model were ~4 sqares long. the spino model 23 squares. since the squares were there i could simply count them to estimate its length (1.8 meters / 4 = 0.45 meters x 23 = 10.35 meters) yet the graph says it is 17... WHY did you not understand this?
@behemuth Wow, just WOW. Again, you're missing the concept of the chart. It was a very small chart that was only shown for less then 5secs, it's not a highly budgeted documentary, its factual evidence is what really makes it watchable not special effects(clearly didn't matter about meager squares, just logical info and the size they straight forwardly stated 2 to 4 times through clear context and narrations) How you're not getting this by now is beyond me.
@Seltzer1Liter ... please stop.. you're the one who is making this into a big case... THE ERROR is still there, i just pointed it out. you forcing me to explain myself (since you're so bad at making yourself understood or just plain stupid) that does not mean it matters. but the error is still there. acknowledge it instead of whisking it away...
@behemuth The realization is that you're making a big deal into something so blatantly excusable due to your desperation to shun down a documentary that depicts spino for what it truly was a fish eater, while using actual factual evidence. Easy kid, enough of the insults already. They've explain the actual size through context and narration and size comparison for all the dinos were perfect.You sure know how to make the smallest things into a cataclysmic disaster - _-
@Seltzer1Liter and now you spout nonsense about its rigidness... based on WHAT evidence? you really are a liar, we DO NOT have enough remains to make "factual" statements regarding those aspects of the animal. so you're just pulling nonsense out of your ass (again) like a snotty child. do us all a favor and shoo shoo, you embarrass me childe. you really do, i'm ashamed to have wasted time on whats ether a ignorant tween, or a blundering moron. now go have your medicine or something... sheesh
@behemuth Wow, I never met such a delusional rude kiddo in my life and please take it easy on the insults. Just because all the evidence is clearly going against your monsters reconstructed dream spino doesn't mean it should be taken out on me. Their are very close ancestors and relatives to spino, its actual fossils, logic anatomy, physiology and factual evidence of which you're either bias to or again just being very delusional. Unlike you I believe in truth not wild imaginations.
@Seltzer1Liter@Seltzer1Liter again with that moronic documentary that only you have seen... I DO NOT care about that moronic docu, it almost spouts as much nonsense as you. yet you keep bringing it up. grow up and pay attention, that was never an argument you could have made in the first place, you brought it up, don't place it in my mouth. thats what children do.
and you claim to believe in the truth, but you display nearly NO knowledge yourself. read up on recent research, don't guess.
@behemuth Nice to see you got my name two times -_-
Well then, grow up, monsters reconstructed is so embarrassingly exaggerated. Also quite being so delusional, all factual evidence clearly goes completely against spino being a sauropod hunter. All you keep bringing up is its size. You sound as ignorantly delusional as Jack Horner, "It has a longer head and it's bigger.... it has to be more ferocious" how humiliatingly childish -_-
@Seltzer1Liter it tend to be wiped out first. meaning its size came about as an arms race over the limited resources, and after reaching such size, it seams like it won. why it died out? nearly with 100% certainty you can say a climate shift. it was so large that if the ancient Sahara were to get even more arid, the rivers and swamps dry out, then it would die out too.
@behemuth You are aware monsters reconstructed has been proven false and that old image of spino has been debunk right? let alone the fact it's very illogical and inaccurate unproven with obvious holly wood logic as for all their episodes. On the other had, planet dinosaurs spino came out a 1 2/2weeks ago and was very logical, accurate and used factual evidence rather then highly over blown imaginations. Also the spino's hand can completely caress is hand around a 30ft theopods o_O(sure...)
@Seltzer1Liter since when have i used that awful 2009 documentary to back up anything i've said? you've mentioned it many times however. and what old image?
stop citing the documentary like i have said it had any validity, because it had none. if you have to put stupid arguments in my mouth to come out on top, i suggest you go to bed and don't come out until your brain has finished developing.
@behemuth Literally every hing you've mentioned came directly from out dated awful monsters reconstructed documentary. I already explain why spino only ate small dino and mainly fish through factual evidence and even the latest documentary that also used factual evidence as well. Clearly you don't read much and is completely delusional as for if these facts and the latest factual documentary where they use the actual fossils of spino didn't convince you then I am sorry for you.
@Seltzer1Liter it did what? how? the size i did not get from the documentary (which i have not seen as it can't be found online, not last i checked anyway) and spinosaurus is not considered to be a fish eater only. none of this is derived from that docu, you just claim it to be so for some reason. it discredits you, not me.
And i read more than you, who seam content with watching the most recent docu with pretty pictures. how many journals on the subject have you looked at?
@behemuth They clearly stated exactly what I've just said, spino mainly ate fish and if given the chance small dinos NOT sauropods and it could barely even attack duck bills which lead to its scavenging after the droughts leading spino to starve due to being so bias on land. Sorry if it's not like the exaggerated monsters reconstructed.
@Seltzer1Liter estimated its size to be 52-59 ft. the specimen which was surprisingly large was not found until 2005. so you ether have no idea what you're talking about. or you're just lying to me. ether way, shape up or shut up. i have no patience for drivel. if you finally want to research what you're saying, then the 2005 specimen name (which i believe was the 52-59 ft specimen) is named MSNM V4047
@behemuth Yeah I know about the supposed spino skull but that size is still just a suggestion and it's only a part of the skull(about 80% of the upper jaw as you can see by where the nostrils are high up)
"(which i believe was the 52-59 ft specimen)" Which also help to prove 55ft is more valid as for even you're basically admitting. The best rough estimation is still 55ft as for they're not 100% sure and some believe and proving less. Ultimately 55ft is the most logical and fair estimation
@Seltzer1Liter the estimate was 52-59... which includes 55 ft. you're just denying the upper estimates which no one else does... since like you said, the specimen is so fragmented. by being so adamant about 55ft, you just come of as a narrow minded guy. it could be 52 ft through 59 ft. and until we get more remains, it will stay within those estimates.
@behemuth Well I really have no idea where you're getting that estimation as fact but I think the only reason why you delude yourself into "believe" that it's because it's the highest theoretical estimation but they never said at the time "it could be 52 ft through 59 ft" they were talking about the only spino at the time which logically reaches 55ft if not a bit less. 59ft wasn't even a big theory nor factual but rather a small theory that one how made it to wiki.
@Seltzer1Liter oh sweet mother of... are you an IDIOT? the estimation for the 2005 specimen was proposed to be somewhere within 52 to 59 ft in size. 59 ft has not been refuted yet, nor have 52 ft been refuted. Since spinosaurus has virtually no remains and only from a very very small selection of individual dinosaurs, i doubt we found remains of the largest one... which is why i go for the high end estimate for spinosaurus at this time. Could you cite a source for your 55ft not 59 ft claim?
@behemuth You got to have the thickest skull. I've already told you the rough estimation, explanations and reference and you unknowing obliviously even agreed. If you wish to believe in the false unproven theoretical size then that's you but I prefer the logical and plausible side to things.
@Seltzer1Liter well you're obviously a moron, sorry to have wasted your time. but the estimates is 52-59 ft. i happen to cite the max size, you for some reason, cite the median. and you have yet to cite a source saying that it was definitely 55ft max and not 59 ft. all you've done is blow hot air.
@Seltzer1Liter you keep saying that 55ft is the credible and only established maxima, yet you've yet to point me to where you read this. could you do this? or were you going by shoddy memory or just lying?
@behemuth I said it's around 55ft, there is no evidence that supports it being higher or less so logically 55ft is the mot fair and logical either way you look at it.
people don't bring the T-rex vs spinosaurs thing here on this video just enjoy this wonderful dinosaur with great music & spinosaurs is my favorite dinosaur
Most convincing of all to many scientists, analysis of TRexs skulls shows the presence of unusually large olfactory lobes, which would have been ideal for catching the scent of rotting carcasses from miles away. Some paleontologists estimate that trex couldnt run more them about 15MPH and based on its anatomy would run the risk of falling over and breaking its leg if its tried to run.
@indrajeet Actually, not only did rex had a HIGH sense of smell but also in hearing and binocular vision which are actually ideal treats of a very active hunter let alone being the smartest of all the large theropods as well with a large complex brain. Bast on the anatomy of ALL large preditors "would run the risk of falling over and breaking its leg if its tried to run" just due to their shear mass. 15MPH is still faster then MOST of what rex eaten which still leads to active hunter.
@TopPhilosopher1 Despite its stereoscopic vision, T rex didnt have very large eyes or a large optic lobe, its the raptors that had larger optic lobes. By the way 15mph is the top most speed, many think more like 10mph.
@indrajeet Actually rex wasn't limited to seeing in just through motions you know(just to bring that out), in fact rex had large eye sockets and a large proportion of its brain to sight and large recnas that also allowed rex to see in depth and gain a far more superior keen sense of sight. I'd never mentioned raptors at all nor said rex had the greatest optic lobes but still by far, on of if not the greatest sight of all the LARGE theropods. Actually many believe rex could run faster(possible)
It's much better than the Planet dinosaur spinosaurus. The Lost dinosaurs of egypt (this) and the Bizarre dinosaurs spinosaurus are the best spinosaurs!
hentesgyik95 3 weeks ago
not bad. Don't mean to critize too much, but you could've done the Spinosaur a little better: You could've made the animal a little more thinner, i've looked at a Spinosaurid skeleton and they're pretty thin: this one was a little on the thick side; did you base this on an older picture of the animal? I know this was your choice, but could you have done the Spinosaur in a different color, like a yellow/green overall, with a blue underbelly, plus black decorations and a colorful sail?
ForgottenBeasts 4 months ago
he looks dumbfounded lol. like he doesn't know what to do. it's funny. very nice!!
zoidschica21 4 months ago
Well... I guess my trolling simpleton adversary is finally accepting defeat in both the actual argue and his trolling commenting. As expected, oh well, he never was the thinker.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
Has anyone ever thought that maybe spino is actually a ouranosaurus which died with an ancient species of croc and just deteriorated together and when found they were either misunderstood or fraud o_O
It's clear spino didn't had the skull structure and power of today's crocs but it's still plausible as I read. Mean spino might not even be an actual dinosaur but rather a known herbivore and an unknown weak species of croc.
condemned6436 4 months ago
eh, idk if a full grown spinosaurus would be scared off by a lone Paralititan. it was probably almost as long 18-20 meters vs 24-26 ish) and probably half its weight 20 ish vs 40 tons. multiple Paralititans however..
behemuth 5 months ago
@behemuth Um, spino was only around 55ft at tops and most believe it was less also a single paralititan would guarantee kill a delicate spino with little effort including that baby sauropod. Spino is actually proven to be 8-11tons at the most(rex was 7-10ton, just saying)
Seltzer1Liter 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter actually the largest remains have been estimated at 52-59 ft (16-18 meter) I'm just guesstimating that since we have but a handful of remains, a large individual could perhaps be as much as 20 meters. also i loled. t-rex is 5-7 tons (7 being the high estimate few believe to be true) with most estimates at 6 tons for a 40 ish foot individual.
Spinosaurus by scaling up relatives which have a much more slender build already suggests 14+ tons. 18-20 tons is not considered wrong.
behemuth 5 months ago
Comment removed
Seltzer1Liter 5 months ago
@behemuth No that's too high, never has there been a spino actually even 60ft but rather 55ft but judging on references to ancestries and the size and amount of its expect vertebras most are even claiming less then that as in 51ft at the logically most but 55ft is still somewhat valid and 8 to 11 ton at the most(a theropod couldn't possible handle such weight especially on 2 legs) while rex is around 45ft long while being 7 to 10 tons at the most(you can find that info anywhere these days)
Seltzer1Liter 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter @Seltzer1Liter where do yu get 55ft from? the largest holotype is estimated at 59 ft...
Also, t-rex is still considered to be 42 ft max, the supposed larger specimens have yet to be included in any notible papers. and no t-rex could ever be 10 tons. the estimate is 5-7. don't make up facts or believe the dubious ones because you happen to agree with them. and the 14t + weight is by upscaling more slender relatives. if spino was partly quadruped, then weight should not b a issue
behemuth 5 months ago
@behemuth Sorry my friend but 59ft was just suggested at the time of 2001but proven false when actually looked at and referenced to its closest ancestors such as sucho with the size and amount of its expect vertebras leading 51ft to 55ft and 14tons is 2001 monsters reconstructed estimation which is wrong and actually 11 at tops as for that's too much even for spino unless that spin is a hump which is false.
You've obviously gotten most of that from wiki which does have a blue edit button
Seltzer1Liter 5 months ago
And yes there have several rexes found to be 43.5ft, 44.8ft and even 45ft long through out the last decade. You can find this info anywhere including the latest rex documentaries and also rex is officially 7 to 10 tons at max as well not only basted on size but musculature, design and structure.
Seltzer1Liter 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter unless you're a moron, you should know that reading the sources on wikipedia (not what is written in the wiki, as it is a subjective summary at best from the source) you get good info. Finding up to date peer reviewed articles is hard. Wikipedia is usually updated first since many editors of wikipedia are the ones who have accsess to the peer reviewed articles. Also, monsters resurrected is from 2009... and it was Dal Sasso who based on his findings in 2005 (a new specimen) cont.
behemuth 5 months ago
@behemuth ONLY wiki mentions spino being 59ft and even they and monsters reconstructed and that newer spino documentary said that's just a suggestion as every where else. Monsters Resurrected was UPLOADED on you tube at 2009 but broad cast at 2001, I guess people realize they were allowing it if not just remembered of its existence. Easy on the insults, I'm just an informer not a antagonist. The newest documentary for spino came out just last weak where they prove spino to be a fish eater
Seltzer1Liter 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter oh sweet jebus... are you retarded? do you check anything before you claim it? check the wiki page or even home page of monsters resurected and you find it premiered in 2009... considering the holotype that cast light on spino being possibly 59 ft long was found in 2005... so how could a 2001 program claim this? you a willful liar or a moron?| Also, use the SOURCES cited on wikipedia, thats up to date, you know... peer reviewed journals and the like... also:
behemuth 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter no one said spino was not a fish eater, they say it hunted other prey items too.
behemuth 5 months ago
@behemuth Spino's main diat is fish but would go after smaller dinos if given the chance and scavenge of on carcharodontosaurus when the dought kicked in. It's because of its lacking abilities to hunt on land was forced to scavenge off carcharodontosaurus which caused its extinction.
Seltzer1Liter 5 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter (i love how you never even apologized or tried to cover up that moronic 2001 monsters resurrected claim of yours... figured out that you were mistaken after claiming to be right multiple times? yeah google is a marvelous thing, when you use it...)
You claim yet again it lacked abilities to hunt on land, incredible, since we know next to nothing about spino, yet you even claim to know why it died out. moronic. we base most of spino on its better known cousins you know...
behemuth 5 months ago
@behemuth Look up planet spino. It's the newest documentary series, in fact it just started 1 1/2 weeks ago. they were saying that spino lived several miles away from carch at a mangrove area where spino stood over water just to eat fish and can swim across the rivers with little to no competition. Which is why they've grown larger but as I said before the drought kicked in making fish less abundant and sarcosuchus terrified spino away from what's left while carch was too much of a match.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@behemuth Look up planet spino. It's the newest documentary series, in fact it just started 1 1/2 weeks ago. they were saying that spino lived several miles away from carch at a mangrove area where spino stood over water just to eat fish and can swim across the rivers with little to no competition. Which is why they've grown larger but as I said before the drought kicked in making fish less abundant and sarcosuchus terrified spino away from what's left while carch was too much of a match.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter Remember, aside from the gargantuan paralititan, there were no other large sized prey on land, not even in the 3-10 ton range. while spino could take out a young adolescent paralititan by its self, that would be hard when they were herd animals. if there is a reason it did not hunt large animals then this was it. It did however, share habitat with carcharodontosaurus and a 40ft croc, yet it evolved to great size, a dominated predator does not evolve larger...
behemuth 5 months ago
@behemuth It's guarantee no sauropod hunter. Despite everyone online mentioning it can barely even take on medium sized prey, that documentary used factual evidence to prove and show how that was true. Its intire evolutionary design is just too much into swiming and catching fish over water like a stork made it completely bias to hunting on land and it's very un flexible, slow, cautious, weak jaws, claws can barely inflict fatal damage to their thick hides except to thin fishes.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter spinosaurus was one of largest animal in its area and time... of the top of my head, only parlatitan were larger than it, and put side by side, it was not grossly out sizing it. (a 18 meter spino next to a 24-26 meter parlatitan)
evidence suggests that spino had a stronger skull and bite than its relatives, heavier bones and very deep rooted teeth. that it may have hunted fish may well be true, however to say it hunted nothing else... thats just silly.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Actually spino had a delicate skull and its teeth weren't all that deep rooted at all, in fact they were just pointed spearing teeth that were also hollowed. Spino was also estimated to have the weakest bite of all the large theropods due to overly elongated narrow snout with relatively small jaws and the teeth of course. Spino was also the least flexible, agile and extremely slow with far more vulnerabilities such as its back. Saying a spino didn't eat and small dinos is preposterous.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@behemuth Spino actually had a weak overly elongated narrow skull and relatively small jaws. Its teeth weren't all that rooted, also spino had pointed spearing teeth which were also hollow, because of these factors it's known to have the weakest bit of all the large theropods. Spino was also too delicate and lacks mobility. It's also the least flexible, agile and slowest as well bast on factual evidence. To say spino ate anything other then small dinos and mainly fish is just preposterous.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
I also forgot to mention the fact spino has too many vulnerabilities such as longer narrow neck, delicate build and of cause its most flawed design, it sail which also concludes that logically spino would be too cautious and frightful to even attempt hunting even baby sauropods and even alerted duck bills but possible their young if not protected. It's the main reason why when the droughts kicked in spino died out because fish was no longer abundant and it's completely bias on land, thus death
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter The teeth were well rooted.. and as for the shape of the skull, if it were weak or not, too narrow or too long... in the end it seamed to work, spinosaurus was a successful predator in its time. there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
And bite force is not measured based on the teeth or width of the jaws you ignorant child, it is based on the size of the muscle attachments to name one. not teeth. it's bite is not considered weak at all, educate yourself.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth The teeth were up to 5in to 5 1/2in at the most, that's not well rooted and they were very hollowed so obviously and logically they would snap off if used for other prey besides fish and small dinos. Not only can't the teeth possible withstand such a bite and the overly elongated snout that was narrow but the jaws being too narrow, slender and relatively small thus leading to a obvious weak bite as all the factors are clearly stating. Knowledge is power kiddo as I display.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter did you even watch the documentary yourself? spino was pulling out what looked like saw sharks 6-7 meters or more in length... if its teeth could withstand that, it would withstand killing medium sized terrestrial prey or warding of charach. or giant crocodilians.
obvious weak bite? i just educated you that that has no bearing on bite strength... would you pay attention? why don't you do some individual research on how bite force is determined from fossils before screw up again.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth It was its teeth and neck that allowed it to catch the fish not jaw power, they didn't even did much,in fact even they said its jaws weren't much.Also fish tissues are different from that of reptiles/birds. Also that fish couldn't make much of a resistance like medium dinos can,lastly they clearly portrayed spino as incapable to face medium dino due to it logical lumbering, slow and frightfulness of breaking its sail but possible if they're unaware. All you said was exactly what I said
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter and you disproved what i wrote how? i said that its teeth withstood it, and then you say it was its teeth and neck, not its jaw power... well i never said anything about jaw power in that regard. however i went on to say that you do not understand what it is that produce biting power, since you think the thickness of the skull and shape of the teeth somehow produce bite force..
The documentary even had a starved spino chase of a grown charac...
behemuth 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter and you disproved what i wrote how? i said that its teeth withstood it, and then you say it was its teeth and neck, not its jaw power... well i never said anything about jaw power in that regard. however i went on to say that you do not understand what it is that produce biting power, since you think the thickness of the skull and shape of the teeth somehow produce bite force..
The documentary even had a starved spino chase of a grown charac...
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth You were saying it's a sauropod hunter then mentioned if it could attack that fish, it mush of had powerful jaws which is false, how did you get lost in the conversation? Also the way the spino picked it up wouldn't break its teeth as easily but due to their bridal structure they've broken off before which they found on these species of fish and small dino, how did you possible missed it? Spino only one the fight because its opponent had a weak skull and design, I said that many times
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter do you even read what i write? i said it must have had strong teeth (read deep rooted)
YOU said i said i meant jaws for some reason. not that i think it had weak jaws, but i was talking about its teeth. so it is not i who i lost, it is you who still can't separate what you wish i would say from what i am actually saying.
also you haver not said any of the sort "many times" stop lying. we have yet to discuss charac. point being that if it dared to take on charac, then saying
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth I read everything you wrote and yes you were mentioning about its jaws strength bast on that fish which isn't how it works at all and the teeth have been broken due to it, in fact that's part on why it's factual(the hollowed teeth were found). It's the WAY it cough the fish that' completely different then if it were to attack medium dinos that's can resist and pull out its teeth.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter were i now? let me quote myself
"if its teeth could withstand that, it would withstand killing medium sized terrestrial prey or warding of charach. or giant crocodilians."
where in that passage did i mention jaw strength? i were talking about its teeth, about how well rooted they were. because i was responding to your claim. to quote what you said:
"very hollowed so obviously and logically they would snap off if used for other prey besides fish and small dinos"
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Okay then, I'll clarify it again, spino had hollowed teeth that can be ripped out if a medium dino resists.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter uh hu, even though the spino had a 8 meter 2-3 ton shark struggling in its mouth, which in your world exerts LESS force than a 3 ton ouranosaurus squirming on the ground? less to such an extent that it would go from no risk of teeth loss to certain teeth loss? Never mind the fact that against an ouranosaurus, spino could restrain it, reducing the force of it squirming by stepping on it, or hooking its claws into it.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth The fish barely struggled and that theory is so blatantly inaccurate. It was able to hold it with its neck and held it by its side where it has no defense and can't pull out. Ouranosaurus or other medium dino however actually can make more of a resistance with much more force and pull out spino's hollowed teeth especially when they're stronger, harder and heaver then some pretty much helpless fish. Seriously, how don't you get this? Am I being trolled or something?
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter it what? so a 8 meter shark fighting for its life is barley struggling? stop being willfully stupid.
and a 8 meter shark is not a helpless fish, would you call a 8 meter great white a helpless fish?
and no, you're just stupid.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Wow, you keep applying the exact basic statements -_-
Spino snatched the fish by surprise on its sides(it had no defenses there) then immediately dropped on the ground far enough from the water(it just flopped helplessly) then spino put its foot on its back(no it can't even flop and can't resist at all) then kills it. That tactic is futile against a much larger, heaver, faster and stronger(in comparison to the fish) medium dino on land with legs.
You treat it as if it's a megalodon
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter that it would not dare to take on a herbivore is utter nonsense. its a direct contradiction. so get your arguments straight you furnace bellow.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth I also already explained that to before. It's called desperation because it couldn't even catch medium dinos such as ouranosaurus but eventually it was forced to make risks(big difference). It's why some jackals(not from halo...) go through desperation to eat the food of jagwars or better example as I used, hyenas taking food off of lions.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter it would not hunt them because they were depicted as bing in open ground, and spino was depicted as weakened by hunger and thirst. chasing them would be a risky gamble of energy. point remains that YOU claimed it would not dare to attack ouranosaurus, not that it would not be able to do so due to their speed. which is why i said it would dare, since it dared to chase of a grown charac. for a carcass. get your own claims right...
behemuth 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter @Seltzer1Liter Btw, i just watched the planet dinosaur documentary... which you praise... it portrays spinosaurus as a hunter of oranosaurs, which could be called medium-large herbivores...
(the part i just watched, the spinosaurs did not go after them as it had other plans, but the narrator says that they are but safe for the time being. implying a hunter prey relationship..)
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Not quite the thinker -_-
They clearly stated spino's main diat was fish and possible small dinos if given the chance. Ouranosaurus were just the best spino could do but can barely catch them as for its slow, frightful and wouldn't dare attack one face on but possible their babies if not protected. Not quite a glorious predator prey relationship. I love this documentary because they're finally using the logical factual spino rather then reconstructed's.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter just the best spino could do? the only larger herbovore in its habitat was a titanosaur... parlatitan... if it could maul a 8 meter saw shark to death, a 8 meter ouranosaurus would be no different, assuming of course it could catch one. the intro of the show, none the less presented the notion that spinosaurus was a predator of the animals during the drought seasons when waterlevels declined.
If a spino dared to chase of a grown charac, then it is stupid to say it would not dare
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Wow, are you kidding me, how many times must I say and explain with factual evidence on how and why spino isn't a sauropod hunter. Not not how it works... he grabbed it by its side where it's vulnerable then dropped it on the ground to take full advantage due to unable to fight back, sauropods are impossible for spino to do the same with and would easily eliminate spino. Even they mentioned its frightfulness as obviously expected
It's called desperation, hyenas do it too with lions.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter again with the moronic tactics... you still putting words in my mouth? when did i say it could take on sauropods? last i checked, ouranosaurus is not a sauropod, so unless you don't even know your dino 101 you're saying that i think spino hunted parlatitan...
As for the charac. fight, don't mess with the details of the fight... that was a reconstruction, we have no idea how it would have happened. point being the clever heads who write the script deemed spino capable.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth "just the best spino could do? the only larger herbovore in its habitat was a titanosaur... parlatitan" just to mention one of many times you've called it a sauropod hunter. Clearly you're either oblivious to your own context, suffering from an extremely short attention span or tying to turn things around at this pointless state, how pathetically childish, it's quite saddening -_-
They said it's a specialist when it came to fish but can also eat small dino if given the chance.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter so, you misunderstood me, how is that my fault? it is your own fault, it is called a confirmation bias. you were looking for evidence to support your own preconceptions. so you misunderstood what i wrote.
Now try and understand you moron. you said it was the best it could do, yet the only larger animal was a titanosaur. which is obviously out of the menu. so by saying "best it could do" you suggest its a weak animal for not hunting those huge sauropods. so you're the moron here
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth I just quoted your exact context, clearly you are ignorantly inferior to have an intellect that can't even contain the data of your own context. Also that was just one of at least 6 times. How childish to pathetically go through denial when they're on several pages -_-
(moving on to clarify the obvious some more) -_-
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter YOU STILL DON'T GET IT?? what the holy ... i just explained it to you... WHY? are you trolling me? i doubt anyone is this dumb.... and if you are trolling, you're trying too hard.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth I don't even think you've even acknowledged your own context. You're commenting me daily with bizzare and false statement after I've straight forwardly explained and then ask the exact same trivial questions again and again, by all means you're the only one showing characteristics of trolling. I'm just a knowledgeable guy who knows what is fact from fiction unlike yourself. Also if you're going to say something, please remember the fact you've wrote it -_-
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter i'm not asking the same questions, you are the one who aint getting it. you're saying the same thing (again and again) when i'm trying to explain to you that you missunderstood the question thus your answer is invalid. but you're too stupid to get it. dense brat... and i do remember, you just seam to think that when i write A i mean B, even though i say no, i wrote A and meant A. you refuse to listen and instead call me a liar.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth I answered your questions, statements, theories... just right after you basically bring it right back in whole and yes the answer is going to be the same(it's not like if you add 1 to 5 it's going to 75 after the time). You never even attempted to ask beyond the usual you've been mindlessly presenting over and over, just simply ranting on the something. Actually as far as these clear buffoonish multi parallel questions are coming to me daily, you must be trolling, you're failing -_-
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter and i'm suprised i have to point this out, again, since i just explained it. i never suggested spino hunted parlatitan, i was reacting to what you said, that ouranosaurus was the largest dinosaur spino could hunt. and i reacted by noting that the only larger herbivore we know of there was a dinosaur that was out of reach by any theropod. (barring a pack of giganotosaurus) so why would you talk down on the animal saying ouranosaurus was the best it could do?
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Actually you have several times, however you've just admitted it didn't so, lets just hope you manage to remember that as time goes on.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter listen childe, that you do not have the mental capacity to understand what people write without trying to morph it into something you do understand (your own flawed perception of what i correct and thusly what everyone who disagrees with you MUST by necessity mean) does not mean the one in the wrong is me.
You're clearly a kid... i understand that now, probably a tween or 13 year old childe. i pitty your parents.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth You can't even spell CHILD right(you've spelled "childe" several times at different points in a large comment, no coincident there)... no wonder why you're so ignorantly hard headed while asking the exact same questions over and over daily.
You're so delusional and contradict to yourself.How saddening -_-
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter again, you show what a moron you are... childe is a old way of writing child. meaning the child of prosperous parents who have yet to prove himself. in this modern age, it can be used as a term fro a kid who have been brough up in good standings, but is unable to make anything of himself in spite of his upbringing.
Now stop writing to me, all you ever write is moronic drivel you paste a "this is fact" at the end of.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth "childe" From the muti grammatical errors you present, it's more then likely you just simply made more inane grammatical errors then a European middle age's way of saying child. That's just the logical thing to think when such factors are in place, for even thinking otherwise only helps to prove you truly lack an intellect. I've proved my self more then enough, in fact you're still trying to turn things around at your falling state and repeating statements. You're writing to me daily.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter no, you're a ignorant moron and thats not my fault. and i'm not writing to you daily, i'm replying to YOU daily. stuck up snot.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth I've gladly explained my case while you've done nothing but lashed insults, gave bizarre statements(that I've answered), and been you've been the only snobbish arrogant child here. And you're "replying" to me from the next day more then 16 or more hours latter after last night, proving me right again and wasn't it you who said last night was your last comment to me? -_-
Clearly too young to acknowledge what's a man's word.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@behemuth I hope this is the last you say as for your daily arguing has lead to a futile contradicting delusional arrogance and false statements(which I answer, again nd again while using factual evidence) to the point where you've not only basically, obliviously but full awareness(possible) in agreeing with my prove statements(spino is not a sauropod hunter, mainly ate fish, slow and lumbering, 55ft is the most factual estimate, etc) Either you're truly hard headed delusional or just moronic.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter no, you missunderstand and repeat yourself daily. i try to make you understand by explaining it in detail. but you're too stuck up to understand it. you're just a self absorbed moron. who denies evidence and make up excuses. i'm though with you, as i've realized i've been arguing with a snotty child.
now go make more enemies in real life childe.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth No, you just keep bring the exact same parallel statements over and over which results to a basic same answer(as I mentioned before, it's not like if you add 1 to 5 it's going to 8 through time) as in if it's going to be the same, it'll receive the SAME answer. You've never explained anything just brought up more questions. I've already explain everything that you've asked, stated and needed to know in a educated, clear and polite matter. You're still the only one in delusional denial
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter lol, still talking? i'm done with you. or are you going to write again? i'll just laugh at you until you stop.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth "lol, still talking? i'm done with you. or are you going to write again? i'll just laugh at you until you stop"
Because you lost with nothing else to say in your dead end down fall and this is the only way to at least feel a delusion passage of false victory due to desperation and literally proving my statements. Face it kid, you've been dispatched but even thought either way You've lost,then surrendered I myself don't need to reply,the war is won but I'm more then happy to reply :)
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter Nah, i just realized in the end, all you ever said where "No you" to my responses. it tired me so i've had enough of you. now i can see you're still talking. allow me to laugh harder
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth None of my comments were bast on "no you" comments. Scrapping the bottom of the barrel again uh.
Face it, you have nothing and I can stop because this thing you just started in an act of desperation is a signified sign of your defeat and a complete different subject. "allow me to laugh harder" yes, go do, lets both laugh at your decimation and that's just pure historical :)
Still not quite the thinker I suppose :)
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter no, you're just too stuck up and stupid to see it. again. also i'm not reading the rest of your drivel. thank you for wasting even more time here. not that i think your time can be wasted. keep entertaining me child. i'm having a blast now :P
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Yeah I know, you're fail attempts of arguing against me only lead to your down fall and also proving me right and now through desperation to start a new bast argue or TROLL in this case. Seeing how this whole time it's now just you trying to shut me up, I'll gladly reply, because it angers you :)
Face it even your trolling last resort only makes me all the more powerful and superior while also presenting to be eons more intelligent :)
The war... is won :)
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
Comment removed
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@behemuth So... I've successfully proven my case, you've basically agreed me, you've lost and kept on repeating yourself as a last resort, I've out witted you in both the argue and your try hard fail attempt at trolling me due to your desperation from a lost argue.
I guess I won the war and you're saddening bonus troll battle for a meager delusional feel of victory, yet you even failed at that. Face it, I'm just a far more superior well educated human being compared to your buffoonery -_-
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
Check... mate...
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter Nah brah, just that after trying to explain to you countless times that you did not understand what i wrote/meant, yet you still did not want to listen, and kept on saying the same thing (your misinterpretation of what i said) i just had enough. i realized you're too stuck up/stubborn or just plain stupid to waste my time on. so thinking back its all pretty hilarious. hence why i'm now having a good time.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Actually, if you read the comments, you never explained anything but, rather the overuse, I'm explaining thing to you while you bring them beck up daily.... I'm more then glade to educate a simpleton like you but you have to learn how to focused. In fact, I've given polite and mature well educated responses, while you on the other hand give insult like a mad child... you're sadly contradictive.
You're just crapping the barrel, you fail at this new troll conflict, and it's fun :)
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
I really don't see why you can't just mature and see what an awful troll you are to the saddening point where it's now you still back against the wall. Face it, you're completely eliminated.... either way you look at it :)
I'm just smarter and more knowledgeable then a simpleton like you :)
Scrap and scrap the bottom of that barrel, you still have nothing but worthless insults.... the war and the extra battle... is won.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter lol, the amusing part is that you're oblivious to the hypocrisy of what you just wrote. please tell me more
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Hmm, clearly you don't know the definition of "hypocrisy"... I didn't expect you to. Well I know I won the argue in every aspect possible and unraveled this new troll commenting you've composted to shut me up for a delusional pitiful feel of false victory... I'll keep writing because t clearly angers you, to hear the more wise words of a more superior adversary.
It's actually quite amusing to see you squirm in your defeat... war is still on, and pretty much this meager battle :)
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter this made it even funnier, didn't i just say you were oblivious as to your hypocrisy? maybe thats why you did not get it. you did the exact same things you accuse me of. that you do not get it does not surprise me. it is why i stopped trying to argue with you. you never got it. no matter how i tried to explain it, you were just unable to understand. so i stopped trying and am now having a blast watching you try try try to antagonize me. its hilarious : D
behemuth 4 months ago
Comment removed
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@behemuth Well you are as flat as a wall and simple. That was a perfect response but it's exquisite to see what a fool you are XD Clearly you're not into reading nor too familiar with context and fine literature. I keep on because not only does it angers you, I defeated you, but this proves my superior intellect over you :D
Always listen to your teachers, as if you do. Wow this is so fun to see your squirming anger, it's delicious especially when you do it daily to remind me of my victories :)
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter nah brah, prooving yourself a moron does not equal defeating me. defeating me would be having me continue to argue the same things to you while you continue to ignore what i say while repeating yourself. i won by being the first to conclude the futility of the argument.
but by all means, if you think you've won and it makes you happy, i won't argue, just another thing for me to laugh about.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Aw, exactly 24hrs after your last commented, how sad yet prove me right again... it's actually a testament of your solid defeat and your sore losing raging anger due to your childish blatant arrogance(the obvious words of a desperate kid falling deeper) :)
*It's what even keeps me in complete control even to your trolling commenting* :)
It makes me happy you're still as predictable like a child and the war of the argument is won due to my superior knowledge and and factual evidence.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter not gonna read what you wrote, just gonna let you know that you're still trying to win when you lost ages ago. No one is dumb enough to argue with the wall for an hour, then get pissed at the wall because it did not concede. rather i'd laugh at myself for ever arguing with a wall.
so why are you still talking? you never said anything smart to begin with, why are you still trying.
(and if you reply to this, it means you read it all, so allow me to laugh about that too)
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth "not gonna read what you wrote" Not like you have which is you major problem. I reply because you want to shut me up since you couldn't win your battles through knowledge unlike myself. All in all, I've won the argue and even you stared to agree with what I said while your other statements and argue were to a pointless state. It's been won long ago, I'm just having fun with your immature motive to shut me up, watching you crumble some more :)
It's quite hilarious and very humorist.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
Knowledge is power as I display :)
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@behemuth Then why are you replying every 24hrs? clearly each set of comments are within 12hrs apart, not within AN hour. Also if you read the comments, you did agree with him at just about everything he said, repeated yourself several times, then when you pretty much lost surrendered a week ago.
*It not a sauropod hunter*
This isn't even an argue, it's just you trying to get back at him through trolling, just inform you, he's turn that around and is still winning. Why do you continue?
condemned6436 4 months ago
@condemned6436 Yeah, he's been writing back to me daily(each comment literally 24hrs apart) due to his immature snobbish arrogance ever since his swirling crash, he was even agreeing with everything I said and kept repeating himself, his argues were at a futile and doltish state of worthlessness as I would politely answer educating with factual evidence. He's still going through his try hard fail attempts to turns things around for a delusional false feel of somewhat victory. Saddening but fun.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter lol still there?
behemuth 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@behemuth "lol still there?" Wow, waited tile the next day to say that? aw, the desperate from a crumbling child. Saddening yet pleasingly enthralling and humorist :)
It's saddening you write every 24hrs to remind me of my victories and make an even bigger buffoon out of yourself then prior. Yet again a fin testament of your defeat even to your blatant trolling :)
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@behemuth Then why are you replying every 24hrs? clearly each set of comments are within 12hrs apart, not within AN hour. Also if you read the comments, you did agree with him at just about everything he said, repeated yourself several times, then when you pretty much lost surrendered a week ago.
*It not a sauropod hunter*
This isn't even an argue, it's just you trying to get back at him through trolling, just inform you, he's turn that around and is still winning. Why do you continue?
condemned6436 4 months ago
@behemuth You guys are basically agreeing with each other. We all know spino wasn't able to hunt down sauropods, wasn't anything like monsters resurrected and was a badly wrong, mainly ate fish if not smaller dinos on the side, was around 55 feet, spino's arms aren't invisible nor even nearly as effective as little kids are exaggerating and had hollowed teeth. I don't know everything on dinos but enough with the arguing.
(I'm writing this to both of you to be fair)
AwesomeFace42 4 months ago
@AwesomeFace42 i wish i could, but the child is unable to understand what i write to him, and instead claims i meant something else. Like not understanding how squares on a comparison chart can be used to gauge the size of the animal when it has a human in there for comparison. there is too many to write in not one, or three posts... but he tires me, the kid is... incredibly dense.
behemuth 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter a much smaller herbivore.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Clearly it wasn't even capable to attack adult ouranosaurus and when they said "They're safe for now" they were clearly referring to the carch attack soon after, even when up close, spino's frightfulness prevent it to even dare attack unless it's a baby unprotected.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter you a moron? you're saying that the group of ouranosaurus spino encountered at the beginning is the same that encountered charac. later in the show? despite the show making a point of showing on a map the different regions they inhabited? you just sound like a person grasping for straws, the narrator meant that spino had other plans in mind (the season was in for sawsharks, so it was headed there, ignoring them) you're the one making stuff up to fit your perceptions... ugh,..
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth No you're just clearly going desperate, even when the drought kicked in and spino was up close it didn't attack unlike a more true hunter like carch which would. However their babies are easy pickings f not protected -_-
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter a true hunter? name one "true hunter" that charges a pack of herbivores when in plain sight out on a open field... during a drought when energy preserving is important.
charac hunted in the woods, using trees for cover. spino had his back to the desert... WHAT did you expect it to do? no predator would give chase in such situations.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth What I meant by true hunter is creatures that truly hunted large prey in order to survive and willing to take risks. Spino isn't that kind of dino(except through desperation of course)
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter You guys are basically agreeing with each other. We all know spino wasn't able to hunt down sauropods, wasn't anything like monsters resurrected and was a badly wrong, mainly ate fish if not smaller dinos on the side, was around 55 feet, spino's arms aren't invisible nor even nearly as effective as little kids are exaggerating and had hollowed teeth. I don't know everything on dinos but enough with the arguing.
(I'm writing this to both of you to be fair)
AwesomeFace42 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter You guys are basically agreeing with each other. We all know spino wasn't able to hunt down sauropods, wasn't anything like monsters resurrected and was a badly wrong, mainly ate fish if not smaller dinos on the side, was around 55 feet, spino's arms aren't invisible nor even nearly as effective as little kids are exaggerating and had hollowed teeth. I don't know everything on dinos but enough with the arguing.
(I'm writing this to both of you to be fair)
AwesomeFace42 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter now you're talking down on the animal again. you think a charach. could have hunted the sharks spino hunted? no, it would get injured trying. did the documentary suggest spino occationaly hunted ouranosaurus when its primary food source dwindled? yes it did.
did spino chase off a grown charach. in order to survive? yes. did it take a risk? yes. then what is the difference?`every hunt is one out of desperation, simply because a failed hunt could mean death. this applies for all.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Carch doesn't have an overly elongated narrow snout and neck nor fish spearing teeth to possible catch fish so obviously NO, carch can't just catch fish but clearly not due to injuries just biology and anatomy. They never said it "occationaly hunted ouranosaurus when its primary food source dwindled"(occasionally), they said it can still find other prey on land such as smaller dinos which is why its desperation lead it to scavenge off of carch. Clearly you weren't listening
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter clearly you're reaching for straws again. the narrator said the oranousaurus where safe for now, cutting to spino arriving at its intended hunting ground. you refute this by saying it was foreshadowing (in a documentary...) them being hunted by charach. despite it living in a distant area.
nor did you accept your error in calling a true hunter one willing to take risks, even though spino were willing to take greater risks by chasing a charach off. you just ignored your error.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth "reaching for straws again" That's literally all you've been doing, even till this point I've already proven my case while even after all your daily commenting hasn't. You're even going so desperate that you're actually repeating the same old statements over and over. As far as you context shows, you've completely forgotten the concept of your pointless argues.
I've already explained on what a true hunter does and AGAIN spino went DESPERATE to SCAVENGE from CARCH(get it right ) -_-
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter This is the last i will say, because you must be fueled by stupendous amounts of Ritalin and retard ignorance and forgetfulness. you're unable to cite any sources, unable to educate yourself when challenged (like reading up and finding out that teeth and jaw width does not = bite force). unable to thoroughly read your opponents response without misunderstanding it... you're ether 10 years old, or have the mental capacity of one. now go and play with brightly colored toys.
behemuth 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter lastly, there is something very very odd with the comparison pic they used on spinosaurus... the human were roughly 4 squares long. yet spino was 23 squares long... if we assume the human was 2 meters, then each square would be 0.5, which would make the spino in the scale 11.5 meters... yet it claims it was 17.
if we're more accurate and the human was 3.8 sq high and 1.8 meters tall, then each square is 0,47 meters and spino is 10.91 meters on that scale.. some docu btw..
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth You're missing the point of the chart 0.0
the squares were actually quite pointless as for the scale image was too small and they've already given the straight forward estimate of their size which is very accurate and as even I said and you've basically admitted several times, 55ft is just the most valid, accurate and fair estimate. You're trying a bit too drastically desperate to nip pic on such a logical brand new documentary, it's actually saddening.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter no, 55ft is the size they used in the documentary, as the median between the speculated 52-59 ft, which is the min-max estimates for the 2005 individual, not based on many specimens with sizes varying between 52-59 ft. if that was the case, the docu would have gone for 59 ft, just as it went for charac.s max size based of its largest well documented individual.
And no, the human was put on a scale with a 11 meter spino while the graph said it was 17. thats a 50%+ error.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth 55ft is found just about everywhere, in fact people been saying it years before that documentary. the reason why(for the 8th time) because there's literally nothing that supports the theoretical 59ft but more yet not enough either 51ft. So logically he most valid is still standing as 55ft since it's the most plausible, accurate, fair and proven to be size of all. I just explained that to you, the scale image was too small however they've already said its size and used factual evidence
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter sweet mother of... for the last time, we do not have enough remains of spino to pintpoint the EXACT size of the 2005 individual, hence the 52-59 ft estimation. to boldly claim 55ft based on a upper jaw and nearly no other remains of the individual is narrow minded and moronic. reason why people call 55 ft is because it is the median between 52 ft and 59 ft (rounded down) there is no other reason. why are you unable to get this? spinos size is 52-59 ft, not "55ft period".
behemuth 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter What about you started having a critical eye too? i hated the monsters resurrected docu, i found this one enjoyable and more logical. but it had some flaws, like the graph size inconsistencies or that bony spines would be a vulnerable spot on a spinosaurus. Nor did they speculate if the broken spino came about when scavengers feasted upon the corpse, when the spines would have been exposed and weakened due to the low humidity post-mortem. it isnt saddening, it is educated thoughts
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth As I said the chart was too small, the squares were pointless and they've already given the straight forward estimate of their size which is very accurate. The size was accurate, especially when they were next to each other unlike MR where carch was barely up to its shin so all in all the size is still very accurate. It's that the carch lost but as they were explain it was 50/50 for them and that was why.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter the squares gave a means to measure the size compared to the human.. so no, not pointless, it is why i could tell the chart were grossly inaccurate for whatever reason. which is such an easy oversight.
they did not say it was a 50/50 split, it said it was a dangerous venture for both, considering the spino was starved and the charac was not, the split could not be 50/50 if it won in such a state. spino would also have the intimidation factor.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Unbelievable, you can't be that slow, with all he factual evidence poring all over it you're saying it's false because the size chart that was only shown for less then a few seconds had a bit messed up squares? despite the fact they clarified that by writing the actual size and said through out the video around 2 to 4 times O_O
As even they clarified from the start of carch, it had a weak skull however spino has more vulnerabilities such as a sail, and they said it can go either way
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter you a moron? the comparison between the animal and the human was wrong. thats a rather glaring error. nothing more to say. now stop being such a moron.
And the docu never mentioned how the sail is a weakness. for starters, charac should be hard press to reach it. and it would be far far less vulnerable compared to any other point on its body. due to the minimal bloodloss and lack of vital organs (or any at all)
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth No, the size was perfect, you're just too hard headed. It's a low budget documentary so the squares on the chart(that last for a 5secs) being a slight bit off is excusable especially when they've explained the actual size in writing and narrations. That is how big a spino looks next to humans and perfect size compared to other theropods unlike monsters reconstructed and they used factual evidence. The spino actually did died from its injury, how did you missed it.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter oh holy mother of... HOW DENSE are you? the squares mean JACK except they made it possible for me to estimate the actual length of the model compared to the human model... which if we assume was 1.8 meters tall, would make the spino shown less than 11 meters, while it said it were 18 meters... sqares do not matter, an undersized model does... its supposed to compare the spino to a human and it failed at doing that. THAT IS all. stop being so... you.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Talk about thick skulls -_-
I can't believe I'm explaining this to you for the 8th time -_-
It's a low budget documentary so the squares on the chart(that last for a 5secs) being a slight bit off is excusable especially when they've explained the actual size in writing and narrations(clearly saying 55ft as expected). That is how big a spino looks next to humans and perfect size compared to other theropods unlike monsters reconstructed and they used factual evidence
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter ... ME? really? FOR THE LAST TIME... the error is in the size of the human or spinosaurus. the squares does not matter you moron! the squares just makes it possible to estimate the size of the error.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth "the squares just makes it possible to estimate the size of the error" Despite the fact they the size of the spino was correct, the size of the spino referenced to other dinos such carch is accurate and yes 55ft is the most logical, plausible and fair estimate for spino's true size. Let alone they explained spino's actual size 2 to 4 times with narrations -_-
I'm just trying to explain to you these "issues" you're applying to much emphasis to.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter why don't you try the method yourself, maybe you get it then. the human model were ~4 sqares long. the spino model 23 squares. since the squares were there i could simply count them to estimate its length (1.8 meters / 4 = 0.45 meters x 23 = 10.35 meters) yet the graph says it is 17... WHY did you not understand this?
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Wow, just WOW. Again, you're missing the concept of the chart. It was a very small chart that was only shown for less then 5secs, it's not a highly budgeted documentary, its factual evidence is what really makes it watchable not special effects(clearly didn't matter about meager squares, just logical info and the size they straight forwardly stated 2 to 4 times through clear context and narrations) How you're not getting this by now is beyond me.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter ... please stop.. you're the one who is making this into a big case... THE ERROR is still there, i just pointed it out. you forcing me to explain myself (since you're so bad at making yourself understood or just plain stupid) that does not mean it matters. but the error is still there. acknowledge it instead of whisking it away...
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth The realization is that you're making a big deal into something so blatantly excusable due to your desperation to shun down a documentary that depicts spino for what it truly was a fish eater, while using actual factual evidence. Easy kid, enough of the insults already. They've explain the actual size through context and narration and size comparison for all the dinos were perfect.You sure know how to make the smallest things into a cataclysmic disaster - _-
Too much emphasis kid
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter and now you spout nonsense about its rigidness... based on WHAT evidence? you really are a liar, we DO NOT have enough remains to make "factual" statements regarding those aspects of the animal. so you're just pulling nonsense out of your ass (again) like a snotty child. do us all a favor and shoo shoo, you embarrass me childe. you really do, i'm ashamed to have wasted time on whats ether a ignorant tween, or a blundering moron. now go have your medicine or something... sheesh
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Wow, I never met such a delusional rude kiddo in my life and please take it easy on the insults. Just because all the evidence is clearly going against your monsters reconstructed dream spino doesn't mean it should be taken out on me. Their are very close ancestors and relatives to spino, its actual fossils, logic anatomy, physiology and factual evidence of which you're either bias to or again just being very delusional. Unlike you I believe in truth not wild imaginations.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter @Seltzer1Liter again with that moronic documentary that only you have seen... I DO NOT care about that moronic docu, it almost spouts as much nonsense as you. yet you keep bringing it up. grow up and pay attention, that was never an argument you could have made in the first place, you brought it up, don't place it in my mouth. thats what children do.
and you claim to believe in the truth, but you display nearly NO knowledge yourself. read up on recent research, don't guess.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Nice to see you got my name two times -_-
Well then, grow up, monsters reconstructed is so embarrassingly exaggerated. Also quite being so delusional, all factual evidence clearly goes completely against spino being a sauropod hunter. All you keep bringing up is its size. You sound as ignorantly delusional as Jack Horner, "It has a longer head and it's bigger.... it has to be more ferocious" how humiliatingly childish -_-
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter it tend to be wiped out first. meaning its size came about as an arms race over the limited resources, and after reaching such size, it seams like it won. why it died out? nearly with 100% certainty you can say a climate shift. it was so large that if the ancient Sahara were to get even more arid, the rivers and swamps dry out, then it would die out too.
behemuth 5 months ago
@behemuth You are aware monsters reconstructed has been proven false and that old image of spino has been debunk right? let alone the fact it's very illogical and inaccurate unproven with obvious holly wood logic as for all their episodes. On the other had, planet dinosaurs spino came out a 1 2/2weeks ago and was very logical, accurate and used factual evidence rather then highly over blown imaginations. Also the spino's hand can completely caress is hand around a 30ft theopods o_O(sure...)
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter since when have i used that awful 2009 documentary to back up anything i've said? you've mentioned it many times however. and what old image?
stop citing the documentary like i have said it had any validity, because it had none. if you have to put stupid arguments in my mouth to come out on top, i suggest you go to bed and don't come out until your brain has finished developing.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth Literally every hing you've mentioned came directly from out dated awful monsters reconstructed documentary. I already explain why spino only ate small dino and mainly fish through factual evidence and even the latest documentary that also used factual evidence as well. Clearly you don't read much and is completely delusional as for if these facts and the latest factual documentary where they use the actual fossils of spino didn't convince you then I am sorry for you.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter it did what? how? the size i did not get from the documentary (which i have not seen as it can't be found online, not last i checked anyway) and spinosaurus is not considered to be a fish eater only. none of this is derived from that docu, you just claim it to be so for some reason. it discredits you, not me.
And i read more than you, who seam content with watching the most recent docu with pretty pictures. how many journals on the subject have you looked at?
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth They clearly stated exactly what I've just said, spino mainly ate fish and if given the chance small dinos NOT sauropods and it could barely even attack duck bills which lead to its scavenging after the droughts leading spino to starve due to being so bias on land. Sorry if it's not like the exaggerated monsters reconstructed.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter estimated its size to be 52-59 ft. the specimen which was surprisingly large was not found until 2005. so you ether have no idea what you're talking about. or you're just lying to me. ether way, shape up or shut up. i have no patience for drivel. if you finally want to research what you're saying, then the 2005 specimen name (which i believe was the 52-59 ft specimen) is named MSNM V4047
behemuth 5 months ago
@behemuth Yeah I know about the supposed spino skull but that size is still just a suggestion and it's only a part of the skull(about 80% of the upper jaw as you can see by where the nostrils are high up)
"(which i believe was the 52-59 ft specimen)" Which also help to prove 55ft is more valid as for even you're basically admitting. The best rough estimation is still 55ft as for they're not 100% sure and some believe and proving less. Ultimately 55ft is the most logical and fair estimation
Seltzer1Liter 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter the estimate was 52-59... which includes 55 ft. you're just denying the upper estimates which no one else does... since like you said, the specimen is so fragmented. by being so adamant about 55ft, you just come of as a narrow minded guy. it could be 52 ft through 59 ft. and until we get more remains, it will stay within those estimates.
behemuth 5 months ago
@behemuth Well I really have no idea where you're getting that estimation as fact but I think the only reason why you delude yourself into "believe" that it's because it's the highest theoretical estimation but they never said at the time "it could be 52 ft through 59 ft" they were talking about the only spino at the time which logically reaches 55ft if not a bit less. 59ft wasn't even a big theory nor factual but rather a small theory that one how made it to wiki.
Seltzer1Liter 5 months ago
@Seltzer1Liter oh sweet mother of... are you an IDIOT? the estimation for the 2005 specimen was proposed to be somewhere within 52 to 59 ft in size. 59 ft has not been refuted yet, nor have 52 ft been refuted. Since spinosaurus has virtually no remains and only from a very very small selection of individual dinosaurs, i doubt we found remains of the largest one... which is why i go for the high end estimate for spinosaurus at this time. Could you cite a source for your 55ft not 59 ft claim?
behemuth 5 months ago
@behemuth You got to have the thickest skull. I've already told you the rough estimation, explanations and reference and you unknowing obliviously even agreed. If you wish to believe in the false unproven theoretical size then that's you but I prefer the logical and plausible side to things.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter well you're obviously a moron, sorry to have wasted your time. but the estimates is 52-59 ft. i happen to cite the max size, you for some reason, cite the median. and you have yet to cite a source saying that it was definitely 55ft max and not 59 ft. all you've done is blow hot air.
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth How many times must I explain the size and why that's case? is it even getting in there because you keep bringing up the exact question?
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Seltzer1Liter you keep saying that 55ft is the credible and only established maxima, yet you've yet to point me to where you read this. could you do this? or were you going by shoddy memory or just lying?
behemuth 4 months ago
@behemuth I said it's around 55ft, there is no evidence that supports it being higher or less so logically 55ft is the mot fair and logical either way you look at it.
Seltzer1Liter 4 months ago
people don't bring the T-rex vs spinosaurs thing here on this video just enjoy this wonderful dinosaur with great music & spinosaurs is my favorite dinosaur
wildmuttben 5 months ago
Most convincing of all to many scientists, analysis of TRexs skulls shows the presence of unusually large olfactory lobes, which would have been ideal for catching the scent of rotting carcasses from miles away. Some paleontologists estimate that trex couldnt run more them about 15MPH and based on its anatomy would run the risk of falling over and breaking its leg if its tried to run.
indrajeet 6 months ago
@indrajeet Actually, not only did rex had a HIGH sense of smell but also in hearing and binocular vision which are actually ideal treats of a very active hunter let alone being the smartest of all the large theropods as well with a large complex brain. Bast on the anatomy of ALL large preditors "would run the risk of falling over and breaking its leg if its tried to run" just due to their shear mass. 15MPH is still faster then MOST of what rex eaten which still leads to active hunter.
TopPhilosopher1 6 months ago
@TopPhilosopher1 Despite its stereoscopic vision, T rex didnt have very large eyes or a large optic lobe, its the raptors that had larger optic lobes. By the way 15mph is the top most speed, many think more like 10mph.
indrajeet 6 months ago
@indrajeet Actually rex wasn't limited to seeing in just through motions you know(just to bring that out), in fact rex had large eye sockets and a large proportion of its brain to sight and large recnas that also allowed rex to see in depth and gain a far more superior keen sense of sight. I'd never mentioned raptors at all nor said rex had the greatest optic lobes but still by far, on of if not the greatest sight of all the LARGE theropods. Actually many believe rex could run faster(possible)
TopPhilosopher1 6 months ago