So did that skin get chiseled out of the rock??? If it is that... Thats AMAZING. I would LOVE to see how the skin feels. lol I mean, I'm not a toucher to begin with, especially in a museum, but ever since I was a little girl, one of my dreams was to know what the actual skin of a dino looked like and felt like... I may be in love... @u@
There were giants in the earth in those days. And Dinosaurs had sex with women producing the Nephilim reptillian butt headed cannibalistic alien giants.
2012 Niburu yadda yadda... oh and the earth is 900 years old.
This is the sort of crap people are saying. Obviously when it comes to Dinos, either soft tissue can survive 60 million years, or the dinos are considerably younger than 60 mil years. Let's let science find out
@rephaim23 science already has. science has shown that the average time that tissue can survive in certain conditions before turning to dust is approx 20,000 - 60,000 years.
Then clearly, if this is Dinosaur tissue there were some Dinosaurs which were around up to 20,000 to 60,000 years ago, if the decay rates are accurate for tissue.
that means dinos,or giants or dragons,or whatever name you wish to describe them,lived on earth till the flood.and man was numerous and bustleing in citys ,and still quicly reproducing,to the point of maximum genetic variation,thats why noahs sons and their wives were all we needed to have what we have today.modern races are offshoots of their genes.the only ones left with the ancient widely variant genes are the aboriginies.they are of the original generations to go south after the flood.
AND THERE WERE GIANTS IN THE EARTH IN THOSE DAYS,AND ALSO AFTER THAT AS THE SONS OF GOD CAME INSIDE THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN,AND THEY BARE CHILDREN TO THEM.THOSE SAME MEN BECAME OLD,MIGHTY MEN OF RENOWN IN THE EARTH. cant get more literal or straitfoward than that! it means men back then had the full range of christ-powers,like we are all supposed to,thats why men are holy and not women its biological.those men had kids who became great in ancient times.but the flood happend after all that.
all evidence of flood events is never told about this dr is a windbag just like his associates dinosaurs where created along side man the age is between 100000 years to 5000 years when the flood happened so this creature they dont want the truth out there evolution is a fraud just like this toad dr
@micknm You might find it intersting that Robet Barker, the man giving the talk, is a christain preacher. Yet in sight of his personal views, he will put it aside and deal with the evidence. The truth is that there is none for the flood of the bible, or whatever religion you happen to claim your from.
@thepunictrader how about this that noah and his wife were giants and that there is evidence and that we live on a hollow earth not the bogus creation ideology
and to prove something why does the govt seem to hide stuff like cities who are older and were built by giants go look up jonathan gray and his site read what has found
some stuff the creationist omit just like social darwinism or how about ron wyatts finds there are sites as well
use the correct term dragon or bayowolf read it 1000ad
THe guy looks like a underbridge homeless Junkie, but he has a PHD on Harvard? Wow, in this case the old saying is correct. "Never judge a book by its cover".
Which is rather sad because it does seem to suggest poor education. Geez... do I pity those who didn't pass the basics. Luckily, I;ve had a keen science interest since early childhood.
Scientist have discovered small traces of protein within fossils, but it is still debated among the scientific community whether it's actually from the dinosaur or not.
Yes. It was found with 90% of it's body well preserved and food in it's stomach. Not to mention it's noted (at the time) as having skin that felt like "an ear lobe".
Kinda puts a damper on "65 million years" eh? lol. Just a little bit.
In November 1997, an expedition team discovered a nesting site that contained thousands of dinosaur eggs, including fossilized embryos and fossilized skin.
Dr. Luis Chiappe said "I was skeptical at first. It is so difficult for skin to become fossilized. It's not something that you imagine would survive after 70 or 90 million years. Even for a paleontologist that's a long time. It's difficult to conceive that amount of time, and that something as soft and delicate as skin could survive."
They are not talking about actual preserved tissue. They are talking about the mineralization, and imprints of tissue that had, at one time, been there...
really? I've never read a single paper that said so-can you site me the paper, page, and line, or are you talking out of your netherreagions?
and even if there was, it does not disprove the 65 million age (BTW leonardo 76 mya, not 65)-it just proves that the animal was not fully fossilized-they alreay found soft tissue in T-rex.
In most of the articles I've read about Leonardo mention is made of evidence of a crop. Can someone tell me the nature of that evidence? Is the evidence sufficient for a near certainty, a likelihood or only a possibility?
X-rays revealed the possibility. it also revealed its last meal.
and even if there was no X-ray, a crop is a must-the animal is cladistically in between crocodilians and birds, and both have crops. to have the animals in such a position without crops is highly unlikely, as it would somehow require a lose then re-evolve scenario.
besides, a crop is the best explanation for how such animals were able to digest so much food for their bodies.
extrapolation BTW is getting a conclusion using evidence-in this case, X-rays and cladistics. or another example: you find a bullet in a person's body, and you analyze its striations, and match it to a gun. once you know who has the gun, you can deduce-extrapolate-the answer.
assumption is an arbitrary, and occasionally a priori thought on a subject-like saying that the earth is 6000 years old *assuming* the bible is true.
I am not saying if they (Hadrosaurs) had a crop or not, but your logic is extremely failed if you are attempting to claim that Hadrosaurs would have a crop or it would indicate a "lose and re-evolve scenario."
For your premise to work, it must be a direct line with crocs, hadrosaurs, and then birds. The reality is that crocs are not on the same line with dinosaurs, as they just share a common ancestor, and hadrosaurs and birds are not on the same line, as they split early too...
I was applying cladistics, which in this case is very simple: If a crocodile has a crop, and birds have a crop, then their common ancestor most likely had a crop. and if that is the case, then any decendants of that common ancestor would also have a crop-including Hadrosaurs. where did I say hadrosaurs came from crocs?!
I'm not the only one to use it either, Bakker up there used it in the dinosaur heresies, and it has come out 99% correct.
If a crocodile say, has no crop, but a gizzard, and a bird has a Grizzard AND the crop, that most likly means the ancestor had a gizzard but no crop.
if you go from here, adn see that the hadrosaur has a gizzard AND crop, then the common ancestor of the hadrosaur and the bird also had both.
and from there, you can see what I meant by "evolving twice" (i.e convergent evolution serving two wholly different functions). its not impossible, but unlikely
First of all, you were not trying to derive the state of the common ancestor, but of something that was, "Cladistcally in between," in your words. This is entirely different. This only works if you have a direct line, and the, "In between," is actually a transitional forms between the two (at least in the direct series). This is certainly not the case.
Next, I didn't say you said Hadrosaurs came from crocs. I said it would be required to support your premise.
Next, a crop is a very simple structure, and it is not the type of structure that is hard to evolve more than once. Litopterns evolved almost the exact type of ankle, metapodial and phalangeal structures as we see in Equus, but did so on a totally different branch. This required numerous changes in many separate bones to occur.
Now, re-read your original post, and see how it implies many things that are simply false. Being more parsimonious in your eyes does not cover it...
Next, your example about no crops in crocs, but gizzards, but both gizzards and crops in birds does not mean the common ancestor had only a gizzard. The common ancestor could easily of had both with a loss of the crop in one line, and the retention in the other. More evidence is required in the scenario to derive which state was more likely...
true, but I'm going by the most parsimonous (did I misspell that?) way of interpreting the anatomy. and yes IT IS ok to do so-as it can make certain predictions regarding ancestry and derivation.
First of all, no, you cannot use the wording you used.
You said it was a "must." That is false.
You said they were "cladistically, "In-Between." That is false. You are misusing the terminology.
You said that having Hadrosaurs without having crops would indicate a "re-evolve scenario." This again is false, as you could have lost crops in the basal position of ornithischians, and simply retained the feature in saurischians. Neither event is less parsimonious.
By the way, a Hadrosaur is not cladistically "in between," crocs and birds. Birds and Hadrosaurs share a derived common ancestor that then again shared a common ancestor with crocs before that. This is NOT the same as being cladistically, "In-Between."
again, you misunderstood: all I meant with that phrase was that they shared a common ancestor with birds in crocs. If I could draw it on my comment, you can understand the reason why I used the choice of words. its basically a palm where the crocs branch out first, then hadrosaurs, than birds, in order of derivation. the result is that the stalk from which hadrosaurs came from is "in between". again, I know what I'm talking about.
Actually it's skin was fossilized before it decayed so no that's not its original skin just an imprint of it.
"Mummified" dinosaurs are pretty rare in the fossil world, they do have one on display at The Museum Of Natural History up in N.Y.C. plus preserved skin from the head of a Baby Mammoth complete
Interesting, so the digestive system extended to the thighs of the Brachylophosaurus; I wonder if it's the same case with most, if not all, herbivore dinosaurs.
Why do you say the Rex is a scavenger? I find it difficult to believe that a creature the size of a Tyrannosaur could survive entirely on scavenged food. If you look at the modern fauna, pure scavenging is really left to the birds of prey, which can cover massive areas with very little energy burn. Additionally, the Rex is built with extremely powerful tendons and lightweight bone construction, which seem to indicate an active lifestyle. Sure it was a scavenger, but it probably hunted too.
hey i remember this dino, im from where it was found and i was one person who got to see it before anyone else, it was so cool, cuz after we looked at him we got to go dig for dino bones, i was amazed by murphy's (bone mans) discovery, the other day when the producers and every1 from the documentary came in a limo it was quite exciting for malta
No, Leonardo was actually found BEFORE Dakota. Besides, they're two different species of hadrosaur: Leonardo is a Brachylophosaurus, while Dakota is probably an Edmontosaurus.
This is a model of the dinosaur, right? This isn't the actual mummy...?
ewblacksheep 2 days ago
He died peacefully. Look at him...
UpwardsFallings 1 month ago
So did that skin get chiseled out of the rock??? If it is that... Thats AMAZING. I would LOVE to see how the skin feels. lol I mean, I'm not a toucher to begin with, especially in a museum, but ever since I was a little girl, one of my dreams was to know what the actual skin of a dino looked like and felt like... I may be in love... @u@
CosplayCore 5 months ago
There were giants in the earth in those days. And Dinosaurs had sex with women producing the Nephilim reptillian butt headed cannibalistic alien giants.
2012 Niburu yadda yadda... oh and the earth is 900 years old.
This is the sort of crap people are saying. Obviously when it comes to Dinos, either soft tissue can survive 60 million years, or the dinos are considerably younger than 60 mil years. Let's let science find out
rephaim23 6 months ago
@rephaim23 science already has. science has shown that the average time that tissue can survive in certain conditions before turning to dust is approx 20,000 - 60,000 years.
berean700 3 months ago
@berean700
Then clearly, if this is Dinosaur tissue there were some Dinosaurs which were around up to 20,000 to 60,000 years ago, if the decay rates are accurate for tissue.
rephaim23 3 months ago
This man should have his own show on Discovery or Science channel!!
Raptor Red was a great book!! Thanks Doc!!!
WheelSlip8 6 months ago
A man who loves his job!
(Jealous).
verticalsmurf 7 months ago
this is not a duck. ahahahahahahh
danielcanas7 9 months ago
that means dinos,or giants or dragons,or whatever name you wish to describe them,lived on earth till the flood.and man was numerous and bustleing in citys ,and still quicly reproducing,to the point of maximum genetic variation,thats why noahs sons and their wives were all we needed to have what we have today.modern races are offshoots of their genes.the only ones left with the ancient widely variant genes are the aboriginies.they are of the original generations to go south after the flood.
irishbreakfast 1 year ago
AND THERE WERE GIANTS IN THE EARTH IN THOSE DAYS,AND ALSO AFTER THAT AS THE SONS OF GOD CAME INSIDE THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN,AND THEY BARE CHILDREN TO THEM.THOSE SAME MEN BECAME OLD,MIGHTY MEN OF RENOWN IN THE EARTH. cant get more literal or straitfoward than that! it means men back then had the full range of christ-powers,like we are all supposed to,thats why men are holy and not women its biological.those men had kids who became great in ancient times.but the flood happend after all that.
irishbreakfast 1 year ago
dumbledor is now a dinosaur man...he quit hogwarts to do this... X))
weward 1 year ago
that a very good video man
farinango 1 year ago
lol @ "I'm not allowed to make anything up....while anyone's watching."
ImAnotherZang 1 year ago
all evidence of flood events is never told about this dr is a windbag just like his associates dinosaurs where created along side man the age is between 100000 years to 5000 years when the flood happened so this creature they dont want the truth out there evolution is a fraud just like this toad dr
micknm 1 year ago
@micknm You might find it intersting that Robet Barker, the man giving the talk, is a christain preacher. Yet in sight of his personal views, he will put it aside and deal with the evidence. The truth is that there is none for the flood of the bible, or whatever religion you happen to claim your from.
thepunictrader 1 year ago
@thepunictrader how about this that noah and his wife were giants and that there is evidence and that we live on a hollow earth not the bogus creation ideology
and to prove something why does the govt seem to hide stuff like cities who are older and were built by giants go look up jonathan gray and his site read what has found
some stuff the creationist omit just like social darwinism or how about ron wyatts finds there are sites as well
use the correct term dragon or bayowolf read it 1000ad
micknm 1 year ago
@micknm wtf dude?
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
i wonder if that dinosaur would be tasty
lance1236451 1 year ago
@lance1236451 That would be an awesome steak :_)
thepunictrader 1 year ago
now atleast we know that dinosars are not pink in color....
kimlumeda 1 year ago
Would have been great if this video had been about the Leonardo mummy instead of a plastic model ... you know, like it says in the title
panchamkauns 1 year ago
he probably thought about dinosaurs during sex before
gynecolog1st 1 year ago
THe guy looks like a underbridge homeless Junkie, but he has a PHD on Harvard? Wow, in this case the old saying is correct. "Never judge a book by its cover".
gerry1976 1 year ago
LOL! he calls it duck billed too. What a goof.
StormRisingOriginal 1 year ago
don''t you think the frills would possibly be a small useless reminder of dinosaur precursors?
Like demetradon and other Permian aged reptiles/mammal-like reptiles?
skinnywhop87 1 year ago
@skinnywhop87 No because dimetrodon was not a dinosaur nor was it an ancestor of dinosaurs.
Paracetamoljunkie 1 year ago
that isnt leonardo, that is a model. however, they did actually find a near perfectly preserved dinosour
rhangatotoby 2 years ago
I can't believe my eyes. Why have I not heard anything about this? This was a fantastic video, appreciate it. Thanks.
neostryke 2 years ago
you do know that that is not a mummy dont you?? lol
morts18 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I'm not exactly a dumbass, thanks for making the assumption that I was one.
neostryke 2 years ago
lol sorry m8 but there is people out there that would
morts18 2 years ago
Which is rather sad because it does seem to suggest poor education. Geez... do I pity those who didn't pass the basics. Luckily, I;ve had a keen science interest since early childhood.
neostryke 2 years ago
could they use it too extract dna?
zacharyrules09 2 years ago
nope, rocks don't have DNA
Gesmehod 2 years ago
Actually, they've recently uncovered Tyrannosaur DNA found in bone marrow. Somehow it managed to stay somewhat intact after all these years.
UrukTheRed 2 years ago
Well, they found tissue. Like, fossilized blood cells. And the lady was hesitant to call it even that, cause it was all mooshed up like.
Gesmehod 2 years ago
@UrukTheRed No. They found some collagen and "what might be" fossilized red blood cells.
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@Leehofooks Wouldn't that contain small traces of DNA though, as dead as it may be?
UrukTheRed 1 year ago
@UrukTheRed They haven't been able to find any intact DNA.
Leehofooks 1 year ago
@UrukTheRed
Scientist have discovered small traces of protein within fossils, but it is still debated among the scientific community whether it's actually from the dinosaur or not.
dinmagic 5 months ago
What is this dinosaur's full scientific name? I made out "brachy", but that's obviously a nickname.
Thanks.
OmegaWolf747 2 years ago
Brachylophosaurus. (low crested lizard)=)
tyrantslayer24 2 years ago
You guys are ready to be "pooped out"!!! Hahahahaha
kvhpkh 2 years ago
Yes. It was found with 90% of it's body well preserved and food in it's stomach. Not to mention it's noted (at the time) as having skin that felt like "an ear lobe".
Kinda puts a damper on "65 million years" eh? lol. Just a little bit.
SoloJESUSsalva1 2 years ago
Past time anomalies maybe?
DarkForgottenUchiha 2 years ago
Um...
In November 1997, an expedition team discovered a nesting site that contained thousands of dinosaur eggs, including fossilized embryos and fossilized skin.
Dr. Luis Chiappe said "I was skeptical at first. It is so difficult for skin to become fossilized. It's not something that you imagine would survive after 70 or 90 million years. Even for a paleontologist that's a long time. It's difficult to conceive that amount of time, and that something as soft and delicate as skin could survive."
SoloJESUSsalva1 2 years ago
so, did you mark my comment down because I caught you unable to cite a source, or did that drewas guy did?
Albukhshi 2 years ago
I don't know what you're talking about, but here's the source.
It's made by Dr. Nate Murphy, curator of Philips county museum in Montana; he handled the excavation of "Leonardo".
SoloJESUSsalva1 2 years ago
Ugh, it won't let me post the link! So just go to yahoo or google: National Geographic Leonardo.
The title of the article is: "Mummified" Dinosaur Discovered in Montana. The quote is on the top of page 2.
SoloJESUSsalva1 2 years ago
Solo,,,
They are not talking about actual preserved tissue. They are talking about the mineralization, and imprints of tissue that had, at one time, been there...
Lagomort 2 years ago
"having skin that felt like "an ear lobe"."
really? I've never read a single paper that said so-can you site me the paper, page, and line, or are you talking out of your netherreagions?
and even if there was, it does not disprove the 65 million age (BTW leonardo 76 mya, not 65)-it just proves that the animal was not fully fossilized-they alreay found soft tissue in T-rex.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
Not at all, you psycho.
NightimeShadow 2 years ago
In most of the articles I've read about Leonardo mention is made of evidence of a crop. Can someone tell me the nature of that evidence? Is the evidence sufficient for a near certainty, a likelihood or only a possibility?
drewas55 2 years ago
X-rays revealed the possibility. it also revealed its last meal.
and even if there was no X-ray, a crop is a must-the animal is cladistically in between crocodilians and birds, and both have crops. to have the animals in such a position without crops is highly unlikely, as it would somehow require a lose then re-evolve scenario.
besides, a crop is the best explanation for how such animals were able to digest so much food for their bodies.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
So that's how science works! Speculation, assumptions and extrapolation makes it so. Who knew?!
drewas55 2 years ago
no, its called deduction.
extrapolation BTW is getting a conclusion using evidence-in this case, X-rays and cladistics. or another example: you find a bullet in a person's body, and you analyze its striations, and match it to a gun. once you know who has the gun, you can deduce-extrapolate-the answer.
assumption is an arbitrary, and occasionally a priori thought on a subject-like saying that the earth is 6000 years old *assuming* the bible is true.
notice the difference
Albukhshi 2 years ago 6
@Albukhshi Amen, my friend.
joiles01 1 year ago
Albu
I am not saying if they (Hadrosaurs) had a crop or not, but your logic is extremely failed if you are attempting to claim that Hadrosaurs would have a crop or it would indicate a "lose and re-evolve scenario."
For your premise to work, it must be a direct line with crocs, hadrosaurs, and then birds. The reality is that crocs are not on the same line with dinosaurs, as they just share a common ancestor, and hadrosaurs and birds are not on the same line, as they split early too...
Lagomort 2 years ago
you clearly misundertood what I said.
I was applying cladistics, which in this case is very simple: If a crocodile has a crop, and birds have a crop, then their common ancestor most likely had a crop. and if that is the case, then any decendants of that common ancestor would also have a crop-including Hadrosaurs. where did I say hadrosaurs came from crocs?!
I'm not the only one to use it either, Bakker up there used it in the dinosaur heresies, and it has come out 99% correct.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
and let me elaborate on the principle:
If a crocodile say, has no crop, but a gizzard, and a bird has a Grizzard AND the crop, that most likly means the ancestor had a gizzard but no crop.
if you go from here, adn see that the hadrosaur has a gizzard AND crop, then the common ancestor of the hadrosaur and the bird also had both.
and from there, you can see what I meant by "evolving twice" (i.e convergent evolution serving two wholly different functions). its not impossible, but unlikely
Albukhshi 2 years ago
First of all, you were not trying to derive the state of the common ancestor, but of something that was, "Cladistcally in between," in your words. This is entirely different. This only works if you have a direct line, and the, "In between," is actually a transitional forms between the two (at least in the direct series). This is certainly not the case.
Next, I didn't say you said Hadrosaurs came from crocs. I said it would be required to support your premise.
Lagomort 2 years ago
again, you misunderstood me.
*wishes he could draw it*
Albukhshi 2 years ago
Next, a crop is a very simple structure, and it is not the type of structure that is hard to evolve more than once. Litopterns evolved almost the exact type of ankle, metapodial and phalangeal structures as we see in Equus, but did so on a totally different branch. This required numerous changes in many separate bones to occur.
Now, re-read your original post, and see how it implies many things that are simply false. Being more parsimonious in your eyes does not cover it...
Lagomort 2 years ago
ah, I see now.
yeah, I should be more careful next time if that is so.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
Next, your example about no crops in crocs, but gizzards, but both gizzards and crops in birds does not mean the common ancestor had only a gizzard. The common ancestor could easily of had both with a loss of the crop in one line, and the retention in the other. More evidence is required in the scenario to derive which state was more likely...
Lagomort 2 years ago
true, but I'm going by the most parsimonous (did I misspell that?) way of interpreting the anatomy. and yes IT IS ok to do so-as it can make certain predictions regarding ancestry and derivation.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
First of all, no, you cannot use the wording you used.
You said it was a "must." That is false.
You said they were "cladistically, "In-Between." That is false. You are misusing the terminology.
You said that having Hadrosaurs without having crops would indicate a "re-evolve scenario." This again is false, as you could have lost crops in the basal position of ornithischians, and simply retained the feature in saurischians. Neither event is less parsimonious.
Lagomort 2 years ago
By the way, a Hadrosaur is not cladistically "in between," crocs and birds. Birds and Hadrosaurs share a derived common ancestor that then again shared a common ancestor with crocs before that. This is NOT the same as being cladistically, "In-Between."
Lagomort 2 years ago 9
again, you misunderstood: all I meant with that phrase was that they shared a common ancestor with birds in crocs. If I could draw it on my comment, you can understand the reason why I used the choice of words. its basically a palm where the crocs branch out first, then hadrosaurs, than birds, in order of derivation. the result is that the stalk from which hadrosaurs came from is "in between". again, I know what I'm talking about.
cont.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
By the way, where is this museum? I would LOVE to meet Leonardo. <3
CosplayCore 5 months ago
@CosplayCore This is the Houston Museum of Natural Science.
KenMacMillan 5 months ago
I do not know anything about cloning, but if we could clone this dinosaur I believe that we should.
csrtitus 2 years ago
Love this dinosaur movie
frlade 2 years ago
Is this actually a dinosaur mummified?
DarkForgottenUchiha 2 years ago
Actually it's skin was fossilized before it decayed so no that's not its original skin just an imprint of it.
"Mummified" dinosaurs are pretty rare in the fossil world, they do have one on display at The Museum Of Natural History up in N.Y.C. plus preserved skin from the head of a Baby Mammoth complete
with a trunk.
cha5 2 years ago
Comment removed
SoloJESUSsalva1 2 years ago
Im going on a dig this summer with the guy who discovered this.
benvnc1 2 years ago 2
isn't it cute?! he isn't, but his science rocks!!!
geoffreyah 2 years ago
i was there. he has a curse. so they say ^^
shannonslameaccount 2 years ago
Interesting, so the digestive system extended to the thighs of the Brachylophosaurus; I wonder if it's the same case with most, if not all, herbivore dinosaurs.
Cujucuyo 3 years ago
hes not fomr texas hes from malta
motocross223Tanner 3 years ago
this is not it, but the real mumified duckbilled dinosaur is like brown.... i think
dkcyt 3 years ago
bakker is an idiot, the T-REX is a scanvenger alright!!!
KodierungHerz 3 years ago
Why do you say the Rex is a scavenger? I find it difficult to believe that a creature the size of a Tyrannosaur could survive entirely on scavenged food. If you look at the modern fauna, pure scavenging is really left to the birds of prey, which can cover massive areas with very little energy burn. Additionally, the Rex is built with extremely powerful tendons and lightweight bone construction, which seem to indicate an active lifestyle. Sure it was a scavenger, but it probably hunted too.
JETZcorp 3 years ago 2
Wish I could poop balls too. :-(
ShermX69X 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wow professor boredom just taught me not to click on random videos...... hes a snoozer isnt he
MaxBearguy1 3 years ago
incredible :D
silmusashi 3 years ago
hey i remember this dino, im from where it was found and i was one person who got to see it before anyone else, it was so cool, cuz after we looked at him we got to go dig for dino bones, i was amazed by murphy's (bone mans) discovery, the other day when the producers and every1 from the documentary came in a limo it was quite exciting for malta
MaltaMTsugar 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
proven hoax. these dudes are charlatans.
picturethief 3 years ago
no body cares if ur from harvard! we just want leo...dicaprio jk jk jk (about everything)
tats amazing 0.o
YJMproductions 3 years ago
Isn't Leonardo Dakota? Do a search on you tube regarding mummy. Aren't these 2 the same mummified dinos?
ButtZ
:)
ButtZilla1031 3 years ago
No, Leonardo was actually found BEFORE Dakota. Besides, they're two different species of hadrosaur: Leonardo is a Brachylophosaurus, while Dakota is probably an Edmontosaurus.
hairen 3 years ago