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.

 

Huge dinosaur prints found in France

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Huge dinosaur prints found in France


www.theglobeandmail.com

Paleontologists in eastern France have reported the discovery of some of the largest dinosaur footprints ever documented, measuring about 1.4 meters to 1.5 meters in diameter.

The site of the find, high in the Jura mountains, was once a literal sauropod stomping ground: So far, 20 prints scattered on a 10-hectare site have been uncovered

Researchers believe there are hundreds, or even thousands, more still hidden, Mr. Mazin said.

The well-preserved footprints from the Late Jurassic peri
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

The hulking beasts who left their footprints in the mud 150 million years ago weighed 30 to 40 tonnes and were more than 25 metres long


Wow, sauropods were immensely huge and heavy!
30 to 40 Tonnes????????
WOWOWOOWWO

Just for perspective, the Tyrannosaurus rex was roughly 5 to 7 tons in weight, so that means that sauropods were around 9 times more heavy than T-Rexs in Tonnes!!!!!!!!

These guys must have been the kings of the Jurassic jungle!

Just imagine going back in time and seeing one of these giants face to face.

I can't wait until more discoveries are done.

www.theglobeandmail.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
A quick question regarding Sauropods, were these guys a result of island gigantism perhaps?

I mean they were herbivores, so maybe they were easy prey despite being massive, they did have 3 claws but they seem rather docile.

thoughts?



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   


Mr. Mazin said the dinosaurs are believed to have left their tracks in the mud, which then dried in the sun, and were then covered up by sea and sediment, safeguarding the prints through history.


So basically a dinosaur left tracks in mud, they dried, got covered by water and 1.5 million years later they resurface like this?:



This seems HIGHLY improbable based on the fact that, you know, water dissolves mud. If I;m missing something, please elaborate.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
S & F

I'm far from an expert but from what I've heard and read there are several theories.

One the Earth was much lusher and had plenty of plants producing huge amounts of Oxygen which allowed creatures to grow to enormous sizes and another theory [I'm not sure how credible] States that the Earths gravity was weaker at the time, Also allowing the creatures to reach such huge proportions without the weight penalties.






posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
the Earths gravity was weaker at the time, Also allowing the creatures to reach such huge proportions without the weight penalties.

Gravity seems like a plausible source


Low Gravity
Planets with gravities lower than .8 have the following effects on people experiencing this gravity (assuming the person is from an EWS world where gravity is 1.0):

Increased Strength. Objects of the same mass weigh less, enabling muscles used to higher gravities to accelerate them quickly and more easily.

Reduced Dexterity. The muscles used to move the body for normal tasks are used to greater resistance, and therefore tend to overcompensate for motions.

Thinner air. Lower gravity cannot hold as much air against a planet, so more of the planet is going to feel like high altitudes; Feats such as Endurance can offset the effects this has on a character.

Increased height. Less weight means elastic supportive tissue can expand, resulting in a height increase; astronauts in zero-gravity have reported height increases of 1 inch or more.

Increased maximum range of ranged weapons. Every 10% decrease in gravity increases the maximum range of projectile weapons by one range increment, every 20% increases the range increment of thrown weapons by one increment. For example, .8 gravity (a 20% decrease compared to EWS gravity) increases the maximum thrown range to 6 range increments (+1 over the normal 5) and the maximum projectile range to 12 range increments (+2 over the normal 10).


Long-term exposure to lower gravities (a month or more) negates the above advantages and disadvantages (except for increased height and maximum range), and has the following effects:

Weakened joints. Bone material becomes concentrated at areas of high pressure due to weight of the body; decreasing this pressure reduces the need for dense bone at those points, resulting for weakened joints.

Reduced heart strength. Lower gravity means the heart has to work less to move blood upward, and like any muscle if it is exercised less it will lose some of its strength.

www.seankreynolds.com...


Decreased dexterity, imagine a bunch of massive and dumb dinosaurs that are extremely clumsy


what a sight that would be eh?



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Well personally I think it may have been a combination of both. Lower gravity coupled with huge amounts of oxygen. We had all these massive behemoths expelling huge amount of carbon dioxide that fed the plants which in turn were able to grow in vast quantities. That would have created a self sustaining circle of interdependence.

Having weaker gravity would have allowed both plants and animals to grow larger.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by afterschoolfun


Mr. Mazin said the dinosaurs are believed to have left their tracks in the mud, which then dried in the sun, and were then covered up by sea and sediment, safeguarding the prints through history.


So basically a dinosaur left tracks in mud, they dried, got covered by water and 1.5 million years later they resurface like this?:



This seems HIGHLY improbable based on the fact that, you know, water dissolves mud. If I;m missing something, please elaborate.


I think the airtight seal after the original print is baked and covered provides the necessary components for it to survive for millions of years. Although once the sediment has been removed by erosion, the footprint won't last for very long.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Interesting find. Many those are prints of some big critters.

Can you imagine that scene?

I would say on top of low gravity and extra oxygen, less species competition may have played a part too.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
great news. i would have loved to live in those days. must've been an amazing sight.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by afterschoolfun


Mr. Mazin said the dinosaurs are believed to have left their tracks in the mud, which then dried in the sun, and were then covered up by sea and sediment, safeguarding the prints through history.


So basically a dinosaur left tracks in mud, they dried, got covered by water and 1.5 million years later they resurface like this?:



This seems HIGHLY improbable based on the fact that, you know, water dissolves mud. If I;m missing something, please elaborate.


What you are missing is: "which then dried in the sun."

Meaning it was no longer mud, but hardened Earth. I believe many fossils happen this way.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by BaronVonGodzilla
 


Ok... here's a fun thing to do at home:

Take a tray of mud, step in it, let it dry under a heat lamp for a couple of days and then cover it with water and wait a couple more days and see it the foot print is still there. But I guess that it would have to be a real sea with waves and rain, so it might be better to slowly ad water and shake it around. Maybe I'm wrong but dried mud is still dis-solvable in water, right?



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
What would have happened is that the Dinosaur left the imprint in the sand which would have been filled in by gradient rock such as grit and left the "imprint" of the footprint (not the actual footpring itself.)

Over millions of years as the footprint has resurfaced the grit has worn away but left the impression of the footprint behind, the sandstone still remains because geologically now it is harder.

The same process as to why after Pompeii the bodies were found, what you see arent the actual people buried from the Pyroclastic flow but the cast imprints made by them and molded from a type of fine-clay as their flesh rotted away long ago.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by afterschoolfun
 


There were a set of hoof prints in the woods back behind my father's shop.

Were there for at least three years. They were made in damp clay, which baked in the sun.
Over the years, they were filled in with more clay and dirt.
You probably could dig them out today. But, if the clay turns to sandstone, the difference in layers will make it easy-ish to chip away, revealing the hoof prints much as they were several years ago.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Interesting find. Wonder what new information will be uncovered. I look forward to reading more about these prints.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join