It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Dinosaurs Lighter Than Previously Thought

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 07:58 AM
I just stumbled across this article about the weight of Dinosaurs and thought I would bring it the forum.

I've put it in Fragile Earth because as our current world view suggests dinosaurs went extinct and yet were prolific for so long, it lends to the hypothesis that humans are also at risk from a 'dooms day' scenario and are at risk of possible extinction at the whim of mother nature.

There is often a lot of talk about the size of dinosaurs and how and why they might have been so much larger than animals these days. I once read on ATS a thread about expanding earth theory and how less gravity might have allowed dinosaurs to hold up their body weight (which i thought was a fun proposal)

The article describes a study by University of Manchester (England) that found that brachiosaurs weighed just 23 tonnnes rather than the previously thought 80 tonnes, that is a reduction in weight of 3 quarters!

Do these findings go some way to explaining how dinosaurs dealt with their enormity? By being lighter than previously thought and therefore (presumably) more agile also?

link to article at science daily.

Quote from article :

University of Manchester biologists used lasers to measure the minimum amount of skin required to wrap around the skeletons of modern-day mammals, including reindeer, polar bears, giraffes and elephants. They discovered that the animals had almost exactly 21% more body mass than the minimum skeletal 'skin and bone' wrap volume, and applied this to a giant Brachiosaur skeleton in Berlin's Museum für Naturkunde. Previous estimates of this Brachiosaur's weight have varied, with estimates as high as 80 tonnes, but the Manchester team's calculations -- published in the journal Biology Letters -- reduced that figure to just 23 tonnes.

Don't you just love anything to do with our Reptilian overlords ancestors?

Rice n Peace.
edit on 6-6-2012 by Lagrimas because: added quote

edit on 6-6-2012 by Lagrimas because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 08:25 AM
Just 23 tonnes? How fat are these scientists?

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 08:27 AM
how much does the bible say that the dinosaurs weighed ?

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:21 AM
Does that mean there are less oil reserves than we thought before?
Or is oil from dinosaurs and compressed vegetation just a myth?
Dinosaurs are found in a pile of dust on the surface and all the oil in Arabia
has so much sand on top like oil was sand magnet.

I like the Velikovsky theory that Venus dumped the oil on Arabia.
So just wait for oil companies wanting to go to Venus.

Dinosaur extinction had them cooled down by clouds the last time the scientists
spoke about comet or asteroid theories. So the dinosaur must have been reptilian.

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:13 AM
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

Im not sure that Manchester universities findings will actually affect the amount of oil in the ground, no.

Humans usually prospect for hydrocarbons using Exploration Geophysics and as such are already pretty clued up as to how much oil and gas there is or isn't in the ground (although we do of course make new findings).

In fact, although our crude oil does originate from dead plant and animal matter from the Jurassic period, when Dinosaurs roamed the earth. It is in fact dead


When plankton die, they fall to the bottom of the sea. The plankton are trapped under many layers of sand and mud. Over millions of years, the dead animals and plants got buried deeper and deeper. The heat and pressure gradually turned the mud into rock and the dead animals and plants into oil and gas.


So no these findings wont do anything other than alter our understanding of Dinosaur kind.

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:21 AM
Some additional links reporting the findings, including Manchester Universities own web site...

Manchester Uni

other source

Great stuff!

Our knowledge of the past is always subject to change.

This is yet more evidence of that!

new topics

top topics

log in