Size comparisons

[JurassicDD]

(12-17-2019, 04:37 AM)DinoFan83 Wrote: What I'm posting isn't necessarily inaccurate, it's just one set of estimations others may not agree with.

I can give disclaimers that estimates can and do vary, but if people don't like my charts not much I can do.

Your estimations have been picked to pieces by people that know far more than you do regarding this though and you ignore everything that has been said to you. You pure and simply oversize animals like previously stated there is nothing at all concrete that demonstrates a 13.6-meter long Mapusaurus with the most current literature. You base it on a big pubic shaft. The big problem however basing this idea on a fragment of the pubic shaft is just not reliable at all. The section of pubic shaft that's 10% thicker but that's it, we don't even have the pubis length. You simply cannot extrapolate an (unusually) large size estimate for a multi-tonne animal, reliably from a fragment measuring merely centimeters. You have been told this countless times now.

I'm done people should now know to be more skeptical about the stuff you post. Reply