It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Astoundingly huge" dinosaur skeleton unearthed

page: 3
75
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 11:32 PM
link   
A Dino that's truly appropriately named.

Now for every prey there was a predator. you know the old saying.

'The Bigger they are, the harder they fall'

So, who/what hunted this bad boy?




posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
A Dino that's truly appropriately named.

Now for every prey there was a predator. you know the old saying.

'The Bigger they are, the harder they fall'

So, who/what hunted this bad boy?



They lived in the Pennsylvanian epoch


Pennsylvanian Epoch (318.1 to 299 mya)
- Atmospheric oxygen levels reach over 30%
- Giant arthropods populate the land


That was long before predatory dinosaurs which were in the Triasic Period which was 50 million years after these big guys and there was a mass extinction in between during the Permean Period. Plus Oxygen levels were lower by the Triasic from the 30% down to 12% so highly unlikely they could exist past the extinction event.

Source



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Thank you kind sir

You learn something new everyday


Seems like such a waste though, nothing nibbled on them



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   


What I always find kinda odd with these type of dino's is that their necks and tails are mostly shown horizontal.
It just looks really really tiresome and heavy if that was their natural position when walking..
A chiraffe's neck for example is just basicly pointed towards the sky which makes more sense and less tiresome.
www.theanimalfiles.com...

Also when in my eyes when it wanted to go straight up in the sky for leaves up high it had to stand on his back legs (in my eyes). But the change falling then looks fairly big then (not very stable looking?).
It only makes sense to me if it was living 90-99% in the water so he could float his neck and tail?

So I wonder if they are wrong how the bones fit together? If not it would probably would have lived like a hippo but a hippo looks better fitted walking on land imo.

Or if the bones are shown correctly earths gravity was way less in those days?
edit on 5-9-2014 by Plugin because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2014 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Thank you kind sir

You learn something new everyday


Seems like such a waste though, nothing nibbled on them




What is fascinating is the coal deposits form in this same period of millions of years.
The cool part is imagining a lot of that coal probably went through their digestive systems at some point.

Have a cool one on vacation



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Cool. Still can't match the ole Blue Whale in sheer size. Of course that's not a fair comparison, but still.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Plugin


What I always find kinda odd with these type of dino's is that their necks and tails are mostly shown horizontal.
It just looks really really tiresome and heavy if that was their natural position when walking..
A chiraffe's neck for example is just basicly pointed towards the sky which makes more sense and less tiresome.
www.theanimalfiles.com...

Also when in my eyes when it wanted to go straight up in the sky for leaves up high it had to stand on his back legs (in my eyes). But the change falling then looks fairly big then (not very stable looking?).
It only makes sense to me if it was living 90-99% in the water so he could float his neck and tail?

So I wonder if they are wrong how the bones fit together? If not it would probably would have lived like a hippo but a hippo looks better fitted walking on land imo.

Or if the bones are shown correctly earths gravity was way less in those days?


Well I very much doubt that Earth's gravity has changed very much.

However, it is generally accepted now that Brachiosaurus and Euhelopus held their necks upright as they were likely "high-browsers" while most other sauropods were either horizontal or in between due to their suspected dietary requirements. They did not need to reach up towards the high branches as they were more likely "low browsers" who fed on vegetation much nearer the ground.

Having a long neck in an upright position puts other stresses on an animals body which you are also not considering.

For one, what about the strain on the heart - think how hard it would have to work to pump blood to the brain of the animal, and also the enormous blood pressure required.

It's still a much debated issue, and the scientific consensus has changed over the years. You can read some more of the pro and con arguments and hypotheses here - Wiki - Sauropod Neck Posture



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 05:50 AM
link   
This reminds one of the time, not too long ago, in the Fifties and maybe the early Sixties, when they thought there were dinosaurs in Venus. The reasoning went like this: it was perpetually covered by clouds, which meant it rained a lot, and the heavy rains meant forests all over the planet, and forests meant there were huge animals like the dinosaurs. That's why Ray Bradbury wrote a story about an expedition to Venus, where it never stopped raining. This drove all the members of the expedition to despair. They started to commit suicide by standing on their heads so that the rain would go into their nostrils and drown them.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: galadofwarthethird

We wouldn't need 'Lumberjacks' if these Dino's were still around. We also wouldn't need Ladders and Scaffolding (if they were 'Human' friendly.






posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: tsingtao
what's up with south america that has all these animals?


why there?


Don't forget that there were no separate Islands back then or so it says in the Books anyway.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

From the link I posted above your post:

"For example, in many dinosaurs, parts of the skeleton contained air, and we think they had an efficient bird-like lung. These features helped them to support their weight on land more easily, and made their respiration and heat exchange more effective than in mammals."


So no you cannot compare dinosaurs of the past to giraffes of today.


What are you talking about?

1. The fact that some dinosaurs had airy skeletons has no bearing on blood pressure and the required vein size to hold that pressure.

2. The dinosaur in question does not fall into that category.

Your argument isn't even an argument.


What part of improved respiration do you not understand, or do you perhaps not believe that blood pressure has anything to do with respiration? And yes sauropods (what the dinosaur in the OP is) does fall in that category
Sauropoda - Air Sacks


Along with other saurischian dinosaurs (such as birds and other theropods), sauropods had a system of air sacs, evidenced by indentations and hollow cavities in most of their vertebrae. Pneumatic, hollow bones are a characteristic feature of all sauropods.[18]

The bird-like hollowing of sauropod bones was recognized early in the study of these animals, and, in fact, at least one sauropod specimen found in the 19th century (Ornithopsis) was originally misidentified as a pterosaur (a flying reptile) because of this.[19]


Again, a giraffe doesn't compare to a sauropod. They had different anatomies so you cannot say that because a giraffe can't grow to be bigger, then that is proof that a dinosaur couldn't as well. I'm saying that your argument is invalid. I see you are an electric universe person. That's cool and all, but you haven't provided a solid link that a sauropod is proof of this.
edit on 5-9-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
The operative word here is IMPOSSIBLY large. As big as a 737????? Seriously? Bigger than 7 Triceritops?

It's a hoax. And the name? DREAD NOT US????

Just more made up news on the MSM.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: gwynned

Because of the article's choice of adjectives you are declaring this a hoax? No further research necessary? I see you aren't one to deny ignorance much.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
A weaponized tail indeed, if a thirty foot tail hit you near the end after a full swing, it would crush any biological animal.
And at that weight if it pounced on you be would be crushed. I don't think a T-Rex could take out a pair of these.
Maybe one on one, and even then the outcome would be in question, one hit with that tail would cause enough damage that even that fierce predator would give up.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Awesome find, but isn't the name 'Dreadnoughtus' a misnomer?

This was a herbivorous dinosaur, if it was a giant predatory species then I could understand the dreadnought reference.

But then again there would be few names that would suit it better-Titanosaurus is already taken, Behemothasaurus doesn't sound right, and gargantuanasaurus is just a mouthful.

I would've gone for macrocauda Patagonia personally.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I would have called it Fred.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: VegHead
Dreadnoughtus -- sweet name!


To me it's tacky and appealing to pop-culture teens.

next thing you will be calling things Veggysaurus etc.

And to forestall "Tyrannosaur Rex" the name was genuine latin (tyrant lizard) and it's iconic "coolness" came after the fact when pop culture started on the bandwagon. This "dreadnaughtus" sounds like someone attempting latin in a joke manner.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
It boggles the mind to think that these huge creatures existed,what if this dinosaur fell over? the impact would send a massive shockwave through the bones and then it would somehow have to get back up again! imagine how powerful the leg muscles would have to be to lift 65 tons ,and i can imagine other problems like it sinking into the ground when trying to walk after a heavy downpour



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I still don't understand your point.

Just because it is theorized that sauropods had air sacks doesn't make any difference when it comes to blood pressure, and the required force needed to pump blood 9 meters into the air. The souropods could be entirely made out of air sacks and it wouldn't change the physics required to pump blood.

Your argument doesn't address my argument in any way.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

If the extra gravity appeared over time, would it be possible, according to your preferred theory, for it to go away again some day, gradually?

Maybe lesser gravity in the past is the reason why there are so many stories of giants long ago, but like dinosaurs, they are no more. Perhaps, being human and having more intelligence than the animals, they were able to survive longer.

Just thinking out loud. I dont claim to know much of anything. Those who do seem to be proven wrong time and time again.




top topics



 
75
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join