They keep drawing it with a mullet, and self-comforting themselves in every comment squeezing through their teeth that it "mOsT LiKeLy" wasn't feathered.

It DEFINITELY wasn't feathered, you, manbabies! Cope with it already, and stop being cringe.

>scaly
>skin
>impressions

>>5006738 (OP)
>all actual skin evidence that isn't keratinized is mere coin-sized patches
Would you say an elephant was completely naked if you found tiny pieces of preserved skin from one and only went off that?

How many iterations of this thread are we going to have until all possible discussion is exhausted?

>>5006749
3

the topic was fully and exhaustively depleted in 2015, a solid 2 years BEFORE Bell et al published on it

>>5006738 (OP)
If you care so much about what reddit thinks you should stay there and not bother us with your autism

>>5006746
>mere coin-sized patches

>>5007089
The patches are smaller than what is shown here retard

>Two skin impressions from Albertosaurus are known, and both show scales.
>One patch was found associated with some gastralic ribs and the impression of a long, unknown bone, indicating that the patch is from the belly. The scales are pebbly and gradually become larger and somewhat hexagonal in shape.
>Also preserved are two larger feature scales, placed 4.5 cm apart from each other, making Albertosaurus, along with Carnotaurus, the only known theropods with preserved feature scales.
>Another skin impression is from an unknown part of the body. These scales are small, diamond-shaped, and arranged in rows.

Why are BBC like this?

>>5006749
If that was my only evidence? Yeah. It's far more reasonable than making up larps without evidence and coping with
>w-well you can't prove my larp is 100% wrong

>>5007663
Meant for
>>5006746

>>5007341
i need for someone to find a mummy just so we can know how keratinous and fucked up the facial integument was

>>5006746
That's cool though. Compared to overall body size, megatheropod scales were tiny. This would've made them overall smooth looking.

>>5007089
I like how we need evidence for scales but featherfags just assume any area without evidence are 100% feathered.

>>5006738 (OP)
I still remember the meltdown that Trey faggot had over this. I don't think he ever made another paleontology video after that kek.

>>5008515
There is a reason for that but i'm guessing you're not actually interested in why, and just think feathers are from woke retards trying to ruin dinosaurs because your metal image of a dinosaur is some 1920's esque lizard thing on its back legs killing anything living in sight.

>>5008535
Come the fuck off it, the reason you're clearly implying (muh phylogenetic bracketing) basically IS "feathers are from woke retards trying to ruin dinosaurs" in all but name, it's just a nicer way of putting it in an attempt to sound smarter than you are. Or more to the point, that you have more evidence for it than you do.
>some 1920's esque lizard thing on its back legs killing anything living in sight.
Also funny you circle back to this. Featherfags always want to have it both ways. Just look at all their "but birds are hecking scary! muh eagles and cassowaries!" rhetoric.

>>5008535
Thats all stuff you think of and said thougheverbeit. You're projecting the character in your head because that's easy for your ego.

>>5008600
>(muh phylogenetic bracketing) basically IS "feathers are from woke retards trying to ruin dinosaurs" in all but name it's just a nicer way of putting it in an attempt to sound smarter than you are.
Never claimed to be smart, just looked at the evidence at the time, Most Coelurosaur families have evidence of feathers and basal Tyrannosauroids had them too and Yutyrannus was big and feathered. So until we had evidence contrary the best guess was it had feathers. We now have that evidence from across Tyrannosauridae that shows they were majority scaled. We cant rule out elephant fuzz like feathers because they don't fossilize well in hell creeks environment, but it wasn't the "killer flooffball" retard artists on twitter and tumblr assumed it was either. both featherfags and scalefags are at fault for trooning out over hypothetical evidence based reconstructions of a 66 million year old dead animal.

>>5008605
No, I've just seen enough of these threads to know it triggers the worst kind of closeted scaly retards to reply angrily.

>>5008618
>just looked at the evidence at the time,
It's not evidence, it was always an inference at best. And it assumes several things. First, that feathers weren't gained and lost more than once by multiple groups. And secondly, and most importantly, that we have these animals classified correctly to begin with. The whole premise of a feathered T. rex hinges on Yutyrannus being in its line of direct ancestry. While the truth is we not only never had proof of even that, but many experts today question if it's even a tyrannosauroid at all.
Of course, none of this ever stopped redditors (and redditors at heart, which sadly includes some scientists) from loudly proclaiming this was "proof" of feathered rexes. And I remember well when Yutyrannus was discovered, most of the talk wasn't even about Yutyrannus itself but of the implication of feathered T. rex because of it. Yutyrannus, no doubt a fascinating animal in its own right, ended up largely being cucked out of its' own media coverage. People wanted a feathered T. rex, latched onto the flimsiest "proof" imaginable, and it somehow became canon in the minds of paleofags everywhere. It was always 100% agenda-based, and it could not have been more obvious.
Hence the pushback and kvetching when scales were found. We see that even in your own post with your "well...but who's to say they *didn't* have feathers we haven't found yet!" That's not science.

>>5008705
>It's not evidence, it was always an inference at best.
about the only thing you get right.

>The whole premise of a feathered T. rex hinges on Yutyrannus being in its line of direct ancestry
retard
>While the truth is we not only never had proof of even that, but many experts today question if it's even a tyrannosauroid at all
it is. Only retards dispute it
>Of course, none of this ever stopped redditors (and redditors at heart, which sadly includes some scientists) from loudly proclaiming this was "proof" of feathered rexes.
Most actual scientists(not the shitty tabloid press or popsci webisites) didn't say it was proof rex had feathers, they said it probably had feathers.

> And I remember well when Yutyrannus was discovered, most of the talk wasn't even about Yutyrannus itself but of the implication of feathered T. rex because of it. Yutyrannus, no doubt a fascinating animal in its own right, ended up largely being cucked out of its' own media coverage. People wanted a feathered T. rex, latched onto the flimsiest "proof" imaginable, and it somehow became canon in the minds of paleofags everywhere. It was always 100% agenda-based, and it could not have been more obvious. Hence the pushback and kvetching when scales were found. We see that even in your own post with your "well...but who's to say they *didn't* have feathers we haven't found yet!" That's not science.
You have a retards take on science, 99% of science is looking at shit, making inferences then seeing if the evidence fits for what you think is happening/looking at. The entire process boils down to educated guesswork that is iteratively amended to better predict and describe what we observe.

>>5008762
>retard
No no, don't try to walk that one back and give me the common coelurosaur ancestry thing. Yes, that was the reason feathered tyrannosaurs were hypothesized, but it was more a "thinking out loud" thing. Once Yutyrannus was discovered the internet was filled with fluffy rexes overnight. That was the impetus that some had already suspected, but more importantly always *wanted* (which is not objective science). These people were chomping at the bit for feathered tyrannosaurids already, and Yutyrannus gave them the chance to go full retard with it.
>Most actual scientists(not the shitty tabloid press or popsci webisites)
That is most of them, and if they don't want to be lumped in with pop-sci faggotry then maybe they should do more to speak out against it and clarify things.
>didn't say it was proof rex had feathers, they said it probably had feathers.
Tomato to-mah-to. They thought it was feathered, that's the point.
>99% of science is looking at shit, making inferences then seeing if the evidence fits for what you think is happening/looking at.
No, that's what should happen. A lot of modern science is desiring something to be true, looking for flimsy evidence to "infer" it from, and ignoring evidence to the contrary. They try to fit evidence to the theory instead of the other way around like they should.
>educated guesswork that is iteratively amended
If that was the case, then why all the pushback and cope when tyrannosaurid scale patches were found all over their bodies? Why not just amend the theory, admit you were wrong, and STFU?

>>5008531
link?

The thing that annoys me the most about the floofball T.rex craze of the 2010s is that it was mostly based on this culture war shit of troons and redditors trying to own the heccin JP fanboys, I vividly remember how it was an extension of the culture war surrounding raptors from years earlier. There was this march-of-progress-esque assumption that feathers were the future and anyone that questioned feathered dinosaurs was an "awesomebro" fanboy that couldn't handle his favorite dinosaurs being real animals. There's retarded shit elsewhere in dinosaur discourse still that's based around redditors attempting to be contrarian against pop-culture, like the idea that dinosaurs couldn't make sounds at all or that they could've been covered in dewaps/air sacs like turkeys because of how the heccin aliens would reconstruct mammals like hippos. I would be much less annoyed if these types of people were more self-aware about how wrong they've been before (like with the fluffy T.rex) and didn't constantly have this smug, pretentious attitude.

>>5008796
This nigga gets it.
The sad truth is it was never really about the T. rex and other dinos at all for these people; this was always just another front in the culture war and the dinos were just caught in the crossfire, used as a tool to further an agenda.
I very strongly suspect that a lot of these people were never truly interested in these animals or uncovering the truth about them at all. They were (and are) interested only in subversion.

>>5008829
>OMG LE SUBVERSION
The only thing being subverted is your autistic lack of awareness. Everyone who doesn't have aspergers starts thinking dinosaurs were lame as fuck before they turn 18. What you're actually seeing is how stupid dinosaurs look to adults. They get disconnected from your autistic obsession by the slightest change and it's like you're seeing them with fresh eyes.

>>5008830
This post doesn't even make sense on multiple levels.

>>5008796
Absolutely correct by the way

>>5008793
Open up, here comes the airplane
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxE68c9rYa0

>>5008786
>That is most of them, and if they don't want to be lumped in with pop-sci faggotry then maybe they should do more to speak out against it and clarify things.
I've talked with enough of them to know its not "most of them". The vast majority hate them for twisting research papers into clickbait headlines and do actually speak out about it. But its usually like 1 guy or a small group against the media companies with millions of readers daily.
>No, that's what should happen. A lot of modern science is desiring something to be true, looking for flimsy evidence to "infer" it from, and ignoring evidence to the contrary. They try to fit evidence to the theory instead of the other way around like they should.
The issue there is Paleontology as a field, the informal introduction they drill into your head on day one is that the fossil record is biased and incomplete. Some degree of speculation is required because we will never know the full extent of things to know about a given animal or the ecosystem it lived in. That's why I said we cannot rule out elephant fuzz style feathers on rex. Because in this case we literally cannot know until we either can find the evidence for or against. which given the modes of preservation across western America at the time is unlikely.
>If that was the case, then why all the pushback and cope when tyrannosaurid scale patches were found all over their bodies? Why not just amend the theory, admit you were wrong, and STFU?
They did, as did the dinoautists like me. The reaction was "Oh cool, so it was scaly, carry on then". The featherfags are the other end of the retard spectrum to you, they equally do not really care for the science insofar as it doesn't align with their preconceived notions of what a dinosaur is. They just see them as giant fluffy birds, discounting the fact most would gut and eat you in an instant without a second thought. That or their furries infantilizing animals because they wanna fuck/larp as them.

>>5008796
Thats because the people pushing the "floofball rex" thing are just the other end of the retard stick to awesomebros. They will just as eagerly ignore new new research that contradicts what they think a dinosaur should be as awersomebros are, case in point the absolute meltdown over Tyrannosaurs being proven to be scaled.

>>5008829
>Its more a case of it was the worst time for something like Yutyrannus to be described, it was during the heyday of Tumblr, and they stuck their brand of political views into literally everything. So they took their little "feminist"(see contrarian) crusade" to literally everything on the internet, Tumblr was the real birthplace of featherfags, and they basically did it to spite Jurassic park fans.
Its why I personally call that style of overly cute and fluffy feathered dinosaurs "tumblrsaurs"
>>5008829
It wasn't subversion it was a bunch of retarded fat autistic teenage girls on tumblr with an axe to grind aimed at society at large.

>>5006738 (OP)
>DEFINITELY
No. even the 2017 study you jerk off said it may have sparse feathers
retard

>>5008705
>that feathers weren't gained and lost more than once by multiple groups
That's an assumption dictated by parsimony. Your interpretation is severely less likely
>Yutyrannus "direct line of ancestry"
You misunderstand its relevance and also how cladistics and phylogenetic bracketing work by the looks of it

>>5008796
>the most about the floofball T.rex craze of the 2010s is that it was mostly based on this culture war shit of troons and redditors
No
it was about exploring new ways to depict classic and famous animals
There was no agenda or mental illness. of course people with those latched onto it at some point... Like they do for literally everything else

>>5009000
funny thing about is is it wasn't even the redditors at the time. It was tumblr, back before the porn ban killed the site. they moved to reddit in 2014/15

>>5007341
Forget the feathers, why the fuck is there paint on their faces?

>>5008940
>The featherfags are the other end of the retard spectrum to you,
And what spectrum do you think I'm on, exactly?
My goal is to know the truth about these animals, and of all things. So I look at what the evidence shows, and when there are gaps in the evidence (as there always will be) I make inferences/educated guesses based on what's available (as you claim to, yet somehow also arrive at very different conclusions) and, yes, using common sense.
If that's one end or another of a "retard spectrum" to you that goes a long way towards explaining the sorry state of modern science.

>>5008998
>You misunderstand its relevance and also how cladistics and phylogenetic bracketing work by the looks of it
No I don't, you just misunderstand what I said.
I know Yutyrannus is not a direct anceestor of T. rex, and furthermore I know no one has claimed otherwise. What I actually said was
>The whole premise of a feathered T. rex hinges on Yutyrannus being in its line of direct ancestry.
In other words, Yutyrannus is in the same group of animals, the same line that also included rex's direct ancestor. In other words, a primitive tyrannosaur (tyrannosauroid). Learn to read, retard.
And that's the whole basis of the feather argument, is it not? You guys are either tracing back to tyrannosauroids or to coelurosaurs in general as the whole justification for the feather argument, are you not? That's literally what the whole premise is based on.
I've also seen people here try to claim that feathers are an ancestral condition of all Dinosauria or Ornithodira with a straight face. If you guys continue to go unchecked one of you will claim the first tetrapods crawled out of the water fully feathered at this rate.

>>5009006
>And what spectrum do you think I'm on, exactly?
The retardation spectrum
>My goal is to know the truth about these animals, and of all things.
>then you wont get far because paleontology is the "fill in the gaps" science, all we have to go off are often warped and fragmentary stone casts of bones that record the shape and little else beyond, footprints the odd sq cm sized skin impression and fossil shit and eggs if its a egg laying animal with a calcified shell.
>So I look at what the evidence shows, and when there are gaps in the evidence (as there always will be) I make inferences/educated guesses based on what's available (as you claim to, yet somehow also arrive at very different conclusions)
Not in the way you think, see we both agree that rex is scaly, I think the way we got to it is fine, you think there is some great semi poltical conspiricy/or that the science itself is somehow flawed.
>and, yes, using common sense.
Kek
>If that's one end or another of a "retard spectrum" to you that goes a long way towards explaining the sorry state of modern science.
No, its the other end of the retard spectrum because you cant seem to accept that with the absence of the data published and collated in the 2017 paper the simplest answer to did T.rex have feathers was "dunno probably".

>>5009017
>the simplest answer to did T.rex have feathers was "dunno probably".
Except no it wasn't. That's the whole point, the 2017 paper was not a game changer, all it did was just confirm what you should have already figured out for yourself.

>>5009020
>Except no it wasn't. That's the whole point, the 2017 paper was not a game changer, all it did was just confirm what you should have already figured out for yourself.
>You should sift through over 100 years of mostly poorly souced and cited research papers from the days when Marsh and Cope named every other bone as a distinct genus found only in dusty museum archives dotted all across the continental united states to track down specific specimens in museum collections of tens of millions of bones/eggs/fragments/teeth ext that may or may not even be correctly filed all while on a strict budget just to prove one small group of large Coelurosaurs were not feathered.

You know there is a reason it took 5 years from Yutyrannus being described for the 2017 paper on Tyrannosaurid integument to be published.
You are not helping your case that you are not a fucking retard who has no idea what hes talking about or how the actual research gets done.

>>5009033
Kek that's really your takeaway? That I think you should have dug into uncatalogued scraps from Marsh and Cope's day? My whole point was that it was common fucking sense rex wasn't covered in feathers and there was never any reason to think otherwise to begin with.
Fuck you and your "research".

>>5009035
> My whole point was that it was common fucking sense rex wasn't covered in feathers and there was never any reason to think otherwise to begin with.
Fuck you and your "research".

And there it is! He finally admits it! Hes not actually interested in the science! Hes just yet another retarded fuckwit who talks a load of bullshit. Common sense doesn't mean jack fucking shit unless you fucking prove it through research.

>>5009039
>Hes not actually interested in the science!
No, I'm not.
I'm interested in the truth science seeks to uncover. In other words my priority is to know what really happened/what these animals were really like. I'm not interested in the circle-jerk and self-flagellation over the scientific method itself for its own sake. I leave that to you and your fellow smoothbrains.

>>5009008
Then you've worded the argument wrong, dumbass
And yes, the idea that T.rex had feathers stems from that. Because all birds have feathers and they retain it as an ancestral condition, so it's more parsimonious to assume that, feathers being ancestral to Coelourosauria, all coelurosaurs were feathered - including T.rex
Could they have lost them? of course. Hell, itìs obvious they did. But in the process, you're getting something closer to an Elephant rather than a croc/komodo dragon like the "anti-feather" crowd wishes it to be.
>I've also seen people here try to claim that feathers are an ancestral condition of all Dinosauria or Ornithodira with a straight face
It is 100% supported by evidence and molecular analysis. Although it was ancestral only with partial filamentous covering - not fully body.

so glad i grew up as a space kid and not a dinosaur kid so now i don't have to care about this shit

>>5009040
>I'm interested in the truth science seeks to uncover
And how do you go about achieving that?

>>5009040
>No, I'm not.
Then dont fuck act like like it you pseudointellectual hack.
>I'm interested in the truth science seeks to uncover. In other words my priority is to know what really happened/what these animals were really like.
No, you are not, and no you don't. you are the exact same as the featherfags you hate, cherrypicking what research fits your preconceived notions and discarding the rest. then you act like you are an "unbiased truthseeker" to hide that fact.
>I'm not interested in the circle-jerk and self-flagellation over the scientific method itself for its own sake. I leave that to you and your fellow smoothbrains.
This is fucking gold, dude! I've never seen a pseud retard manage to say "I'm not interested in science go fuck yourself" in such a flowery, over the top, fake intellectual way! Good for you anon!

>>5009042
based sapacefag

Say, have they sorted out the Hubble tension yet?

>>5009045
doesn't look like it
honestly with space x shitting up the space world rn it kinda sucks to be a space fag
i remember being a kid and thinking the shuttle was the coolest shit ever and now its been killed only for fucking musk to come in and force his cyber dildos everywhere

>>5009043
He does it by shitting up dinosaur threads with his shitty conspiracy theories and autisticly quoting a 2017 study of tyrannosaurid skin fossils to see how much of the body was covered in scales or feathers that came to the conclusion they were predominantly scaled, but couldn't rule out elephant like fuzz. As if its the word of God itself.

>>5009041
>But in the process, you're getting something closer to an Elephant rather than a croc/komodo dragon like the "anti-feather" crowd wishes it to be.
And here is the problem though: that is not what the pro-feather crowd was (and is) pushing for. They wanted fluffy tumblrsaurs.
Pic related is from a supposed "field guide of Mesozoic birds"

>>5009052
>And here is the problem though: that is not what the pro-feather crowd was (and is) pushing for. They wanted fluffy tumblrsaurs.
>Pic related is from a supposed "field guide of Mesozoic birds"
Yeah and they are equally as retarded as this anon>>5009040 and you should ignore both.

>>5009052
Yeah and they are equally as retarded as this anon here >>5009040 and you should ignore both.

>>5009043
Good try, but you're not going to "gotcha" me on that. You didn't read what I said. Obviously, you seek to uncover the truth using scientific investigation. But here's the thing: the truth is the truth, whether you're able to "prove" it or not. What happened is what happened, and your evidence being incorrect or misinterpreted does not change that.
Picture a mystery to be solved, or better yet a court case. You can imagine yourself as the judge, juror, or just an interested onlooker. It doesn't matter. But you would likely be more interested in what actually happened, what crime was committed, etc than getting hung up on say the intricacies of the lie detector test used on the defendant at one point, spinning off from there into a borderline religious reverence (ironic) for lie detectors themselves.
If anything a lot of scientists are more like the lawyers in this analogy, constructing a case that they know is bullshit (but which the other side can't prove wrong) to arrive at a certain outcome.
>>5009049
I'm not paleoschizo if that's what you mean. Although I will say he is right more often than not. I don't agree with everything he says (though I do agree with a lot), but his heart is always in the right place. Your side cannot say the same.

>>5009055
I should igore myself? Those posts are both by me anon kek.

>>5009057
Unironically yes, ignore yourself.

>>5009055
What's your gimmick?

>>5009062
My gimmick is I'm an autistic sperg in a field of autistic spergs.

>>5009056
>Obviously, you seek to uncover the truth using scientific investigation
No, I'm just passionate about the topic and the science behind it. I don't have an autistic obsession over uncovering the grand truth of the comsos

>>5009052
>hat is not what the pro-feather crowd was (and is) pushing for. They wanted fluffy tumblrsaurs.
nobody "wanted" anything. There's no scientific study that determines the effect the increase of mass had on dinosaurs integument. In modern mammals we can observe how it behaves, but dinosaurs were physiologically and anatomically VERY different.
Yutyrannus shows us that a 2 ton 9 meters carnivore in a temperate to cold region was fully feathered. Albertosaurus shows us that a 3 ton 9 meters carnivore in a temperate to cold region at the very least had some small scales. How do we judge that? What conclusion do we reach?
Pic very much related
Regardless of how much feather you remove the further down the Tyrannosaurid family line you go, you're never getting the JP T.rex

>>5009068
Well, there you go. You're more interested in the tools and methods used to uncover the "grand truth" than in the truth itself. I am the opposite, therefore we will never agree and this conversation is pointless.
I will say however, your worldview is far more autistic than mine. And that's really not up for debate.

>>5009056
>big ass rambling rant unrelated to the topic at hand
You say you aren't Paleoschizo, but are you sure you aren't Paleoschizo?

>>5009070
>you're never getting the JP T.rex
I like how scaly T. rex was assumed the default since it's discovery in, what, 1902 or so? And yet the featherfag narrative is that people thought it was scaly only because of Jurassic Park (circa 1993...well the novel is 89 but you probably don't know of it).
Just another example of the shameless intellectual dishonesty on display here.
As for the nitty gritty part of your post...with T. rex we have a 10 plus ton carnivore in a sub-tropical to tropical environment...falling your own line of questioning (which you weren't wrong about)...now how do we judge THAT? What conclusions can we make?
Before you answer, also keep in mind that T. rex is a much later, much more derived form than it's distant grand uncle Yutryannus, and that's assuming ol' Uncle Yu is classified correctly to begin with.

>>5009072
>rambling rant unrelated to the topic at hand
It's called an analogy, you autistic ivory tower retard.

>>5009074
No, an analogy is me insisting Smilodon was bald because we haven't found fossilized Smilodon hair. Despite all other known land Carnivorans being hairy. You just went on a rant and made a few stupid and incoherent comparisons based on your flawed assumptions on what you think science is.

>>5009075
There is no reason to assume Smilodon was bald to begin with.
Just like there's no reason to assume rex was covered in feathers, what a coincidence.
>inb4 but muh bracketing
I mean a good reason.

>>5009073
>I like how scaly T. rex was assumed the default since it's discovery in, what, 1902 or so?
That doesn't matter. People pushing against feathers have mostly been either JP awesomebros, scalies or losers upset about gays, furries and whatnot.
Scientific push against feathered T.rex is entirely logical, and I agree T.rex was a scaly animal first and foremost. But I believe it would have looked more like an elephant

>>5009071
You sound histrionic

>>5009078
>People pushing against feathers have mostly been either JP awesomebros, scalies
No, they haven't. That's the problem, you guys love assigning motives to people that simply aren't there. Are you a "scaly" by your own logic then?

>>5009077
>There is no reason to assume Smilodon was bald to begin with.
And there is no reason to assume its not. Give me a reason to assume it was not bald?

>>5009080
And meanwhile, there literally are people who wants fluffy feathered dinos because they make them more fuckable or because they can better self-identify with a "heckin fluffy chongus".
Dimissing anyone who sees this shit and says "are you sick fucks out of your minds?" as a "scaly" has to be the height of intellectually dishonest, "but both sides are bad tho!" nonsense.

>>5009080
There's a difference between making an informed argument and sperging out about something. People have been hating feathered T.rex for aesthetic and personal since the early 2000s, not for a scientific one. Me disagreeing with this mindset doesn't mean I think T.rex was fluffy
need I remind you of how VIRAL the 2017 study went? the study that LITERALLY said "I dunno maybe T.rex could have had some feathers? Most likely no but not impossible" was picked up by so many news outlets that spun the story around as if "Jurassic Park has been vindicated".
If you want to discuss feathernazis and tumblerinas, you need to pick up on this historical subtlety. If you're unable to, then stay in your lane

>>5009079
stop samefagging we all know its just the same 3 anons arguing?

>>5009082
>Give me a reason to assume it was not bald?
Why would it be bald? What other (wild) cats are bald? What evidence is there it would be bald? Why would you think it was bald to begin with, other than maybe contrarianism?
I know exactly what you're doing here anon. Every attempted trap you're laying out as a "gotcha" for me is only further proving MY point. Not yours.

>>5009086
why in the actual fuck would I call "myself" histrionic? moron

>>5009089
not you, you stupid nigger

>>5009085
>There's a difference between making an informed argument and sperging out about something.
And you're intentionally conflating the two. People have very good science-based reasoning to speak out against shit like >>5009052. Not because it looks ridiculous (although it does) but because it is founded on literally nothing but agenda and hope. This has nothing to do with anyone thinking scaly rex is "sexier" or whatever else you've come up with.
>need I remind you of how VIRAL the 2017 study went?
And now ask yourself, just WHY was the pushback so hard, and so gleeful? What historical subtlety are YOU not considering here?

Thread TLDR:
T. Rex definitely had residual feathers as an adult but large portions of its body regressed back to scales and turkey skin

Some actual fucking loser thinks t. rex is a symbol of masculinity, rather than a symbol of immature 8 year old fuckwits who like monster trucks and batman

>>5009088
>Every attempted trap you're laying out as a "gotcha" for me is only further proving MY point. Not yours.
Yet you still used the EXACT SAME argument to justify feathered rex. It's not me trying to pull a gotcha on you, I was just genuinely curious how you'd square the circle and justify it to yourself.

>>5009093
Justify feathered rex? I'm arguing against it the whole thread you idiot.
Here, I'll "square the circle" and give the answer away, though you won't learn anything this way. Oh well.
1. furry Smilodon should be assumed to be the default
2. scaly Tyrannosaurus should also be assumed to be the default
3. neither assumption should or needed to be challenged without damn good reason
4. pro-feathered T. rex camp, despite their assertions, failed to present that damn good reason
5. pro-feathered camp ended up proven wrong in the end anyway but still somehow want to run an imagined victory lap

>>5009098
Feathers are basal to the clade. This is damn good reason. I hope this helps.
>but i found a scaly patch in this
>BIG AREA INFOGRAPHIC?
>reality: small chunk, tiny fuzzy feathers do not fossilize well anyways

Obligatory factual statements to filter out the retards:
Birds are dinosaurs. Evolution is a fact, not a theory.

>>5009078
>People pushing against feathers have mostly been either JP awesomebros, scalies or losers upset about gays, furries and whatnot.
I was there during the peak of the Yutyrannus hype back in 2012, I saw people suggesting that Yutyrannus had feathers because of the seasonal climate it lived in get dismissed because a couple of autists made this retarded argument at the time that feathers actually *deflected* heat so it made sense for these huge animals to be covered in insulation in tropical climates. I wasn't against it at the time because I didn't know better (I was in high school) but it's insanely retarded to look back on and none of the people that ran with this shit at the time ever owned up to it because they were too concerned about owning the fanboy "awesomebros." To this day they're still more concerned about the "awesomebro" shit than anything else because it's the thing they end up bitching and moaning about the most.
>>5009000
The feather-war shit has gone on at least since 2011 and I know because I saw it all the time on DeviantArt and blogs back then. It was mostly autists pitting themselves against the JP fanboys over feathered raptors and the "science ruined dinosaurs" popsci opinion that was in vogue at the time. With Yutyrannus and All Yesterdays they only doubled down and any criticism of feathered tyrannosaurs was always dismissed as fanboys being unable to handle the vision of their favorite dinosaurs as real animals. It was an outgrowth of the earlier rift regarding raptors and feathers since it was the exact same individuals with the exact same sentiments. It led to shit like sauropods and even non-dinosaur Triassic archosaurs (like pic related) being drawn as having feathers. I wouldn't even care if these people showed some self-awareness since they ended up being proven wrong but they never do. They still have the same attitudes as before.

>>5009100
>Feathers are basal to the clade.
Which clade do you mean? Tyrannosauroidia? Scant evidence. To Dinosauria in general? Even less.
>This is damn good reason.
No it's not, because even if we allow for the above "proof" we also know that descendants can and do lose ancestral traits all the time.
If you mean the ancestral clade as dinos in general, you're not arguing for feathered sauropods then are you? (or perhaps you are...)

>>5009102
nigga there are onithiscians with protofeathers like Kulindadromeus and Psittacosaurus, and even Pterosaurs have furry integument called pycnofibers that are generally considered to be homologous to dinosaur protofeathers. Hell we worked out living crocodilians posses the genetic toolkit required to convert scales to protofeathers. Its pretty much a given that feathers were basal to the dinosaur+pterosaur clade if not Archosauria as a whole.

You are just coping.

>>5009102
Yutyrannus was named so we can prove you wrong and call you a tranny in the same breath

Yutyrannus

>>5009104
Hmm, so crocodilians have the genetic potential to have evolved feathers, ancestral crocodilians may have been feathered or descended from feathers...and yet modern crocs are, clearly, non-debatably, NOT feathered.
So...what possibilities do you think this opens up as far as non-feathered T. rex goes anon?
I guess that phylogenetic bracketing wasn't the slam dunk evidence for fluffy rex you thought it was after all huh?

>>5009104
Hmm, so crocodilians have the genetic potential to have evolved feathers, ancestral crocodilians may have been feathered or descended from feathered animals...and yet modern crocs are, clearly, non-debatably, NOT feathered.
So...what possibilities do you think this opens up as far as non-feathered T. rex goes anon?
I guess that phylogenetic bracketing wasn't the slam dunk evidence for fluffy rex you thought it was after all huh?

Come to think of it, have we ever found skin impressions from Deinosuchus? Or Sarcosuchus, or Purrasuarus, or any other giant croc?
Well, who is to say they *weren't* covered with feathers then? After all, some of their much earlier primitive ancestors (might have) had them. You can't say they weren't!
No? What, you're not some kind of JPawesomebro or scaly, are you anons?

>>5009107
>>5009109
>cherrypicked what was said to for his argument
>>5009112
because Deinosuchus is a basal alligator and Purussaurus is a Caiman, not crocodiliomorphs, plus you are just being a disingenuous fuck.

>>5009107
Love how you ignored ornithiscian feathers and pterosaur pycnofibers to strawman about feathered crocodiles

>>5009115
And T. rex is a tyrannosaurid and not a basal coelurosaurian ancestor, so thanks for agreeing with me.
Interesting how you concede alligators and caimans are capable of losing (hypothetical) basal ancestral conditions from further back in their clade and yet tyrannosaurs weren't. Why are they a special case?

>>5006738 (OP)
>feathers
>on that huge of animal
>in the hot ass 5-10C higher temperature cretaceous

>>5009120
>Love how you ignored ornithiscian feathers
From what I've read, those ornithischian "feathers" are still a source of some debate. Pterosaurs are pterosaurs and a very different animal in every, literal sense of the word.
There is no "cherrypicking" here; you and >>5009115 are assuming every argument you make carry much more weight than they actually do and even need to be addressed by me to begin with.

>>5009126
>a source of some debate
On 4chan. Where one retarded self styled paleobotanist schizo thinks they look like palm bark.

>>5009126
Nigga Pterosaurs are the sister clade to Dinosaurs, they are each the others closest relatives.

>>5009130
And did you guys ever prove him wrong?
I do think the psittacosaur quills look suspiciously like a palm frond, but I don't really have a horse in that race. I do think it's funny that almost overnight a bunch of restorations of ceratopsids showed up that "just happened" to have that exact same pattern of tail integument as a much older indirect ancestor (sound familiar?). I wonder why people don't apply this same reasoning to art of prehistoric mammals.

>>5009132
Yes, just fucking look at the palm front, and then look at the quills, and behold, they are obviously different. It's not palm fronts. It's not bark. It looks nothing like it at any level of magnification.

Imagine agreeing with bugguy, a dutchman who unironically has sex with dogs.

>Hell creek paleoclimate recons put the average temp at about 20.1–20.5 °C annually
>Tyrannosaurus evolved from an ancestor with feathers
>Must be entirely scaly! No feathers at all!

>Average annual temperature in India is is around 25°C
>Indian Elephants
>evolved from furry ancestor
>Still has sparse fur despite living in a hotter climate

>>5009133
I don't know anything about the sex with dogs part but that sounds pretty slanderous.
Did he really just hurt your feelings in a debate that bad?

>>5009133
im legit surprised /an/ didnt see dogredditorschizo’s desk and instantly realize it was bugguy

>>5009138
>dodging the question

>>5009138
No, he actually is a zoophile. I forget if it was an australian shepherd or a german shepherd.

>>5009137
Sparse elephantine feathers (for lack of a better description) are NOT what featherfags were autistically arguing for and to claim otherwise is highly intellectually dishonest.

>>5009140
Wait bugguy is that reddit dogfucker?I? Holy shit! it makes so much sense.

>>5009145
Yes, the pro-cat anti-dog schizo that has a suspiciously large dog pussy collection

>>5009141
What question, nigger?

>>5009145
sometimes i forget that despite how much dogredditorschizo seethes about dogs and anyone saying cats arent perfect or exactly what retarded afro-semitic myths say they are, he is the only person on /an/ who has ever posted a webm of a dog getting molested.

>>5009144
For the last fucking time. Featherfags are/were not scientists. And no matter how much you assert and wish they were the truth of the matter is they are not. I was in among the discussions at the time, the general feeling was its the media is doing what it always does, exaggerate the shit out of whats said to make money. And the idea of what up to that point had been typecast as "the ultimate reptilian predator" being covered in fluff and colored like a macaw because it was a novelty and got views and ad clicks.

What you seem to not be able to comprehend is Scientists in general do not care for what the mainstream media does for cash. It wasn't a political thing. Do you have any fucking idea how many paleontologists point out anatomical and behaviorally inaccuracies in the Jurassic franchise in general to no affect? There is a veritable cottage industry around paleonerds circlejerking about the dinosaur designs in the films.

Get it into your thick skull, they are not politically motivated, they don't have agendas there is no conspiracy to push feathered dinosaurs. You are just a retard schizo on 4chan repeatedly posting the same shitty thread because you are willingly ignorant and don't want to admit you are emotionally attached to your own mental image of a bunch of dead animals.

>>5009105
Yutyrannus was named for controversy, it is less related to the Tyrannosaurids than they are to the Megaraptorans. It is less related to Tyrannosaurs rex than you are to a Lemur. Almost 100 million years of evolution divide them.

>>5009163
>Megaraptorans

Bruh, there are still recent enough legitimate studies that place them as Carnosaurs or basal Coelurosaurs.There is still no general consensus on what they actually were.

>>5009161
>What you seem to not be able to comprehend is Scientists in general do not care for what the mainstream media does for cash.
They should though.
It would have been completely effortless for one or more scientists to make a public statement to the effect of
>hold up you fucking retards, we never said any of this, don't misquote us and spread false information
But they never did. They permissively just let the falsehoods spread and now here we are. And don't compare Jurassic Park to this shit, that's a fucking movie. The people who make art like >>5009144 think the animal actually looked like that.

>>5009171
>he people who make art like >>5009144 think the animal actually looked like that.
I've always seen those out there design as experiments and artistic licence. I don't think actual paleontologists ever envisioned T.rex like that
Artists can draw whatever they want

>>5009171
But they never did. They permissively just let the falsehoods spread and now here we are. And don't compare Jurassic Park to this shit, that's a fucking movie. The people who make art like >>5009144 think the animal actually looked like that.
No shit Sherlock, because we all fucking know for a fact it would have had no effect because retards (like you and featherfags) will ignore it and keep on posting stupid inaccurate shit

>>5009171
>But they never did. They permissively just let the falsehoods spread and now here we are. And don't compare Jurassic Park to this shit, that's a fucking movie. The people who make art like >>5009144 think the animal actually looked like that.
No shit Sherlock, because we all fucking know for a fact it would have had no effect because retards (like you and featherfags) will ignore it and keep on posting stupid inaccurate shit.

>>5009165
>there are still recent enough legitimate studies that place them as Carnosaurs or basal Coelurosaurs.
I haven't seen one that was compelling in almost a decade.

>>5009101
>pic related
That guy's art is so fucking horrendous. It makes me want to puke every time it pops up in google searches

Damn this thread went from 30 to 100+ quick.
>>5009156
>>5009150
I think I know the freak you're talking about, the same psycho that some months back flooded the whole /an/ catalog with 5 year old cat threads copied over with cp webm replies/embeds after a particularly intense catvdog meltdown.
He attacks the catfag thread as well, no one really likes him.

This is why I've come to prefer cenozoic paleoart, because at least a good majority of extinct mammals have pretty close relatives that are still living and the artists don't have to make inferences and wild guesses for their depictions from animals that are barely related or straight up unrelated to the animal being drawn

>>5009288
Saber tooth tigers were bald not furry, this is SJW propaganda!

>>5009288
I am so glad the retarded "smilodon had its fangs covered" meme didn't take off

>>5008861
>what if they were feathers... in disguise!
Jesus the amount of coping

>>5009171
You say that but they literally republished a paper on T. rex scales to get Trey to shut the fuck up about his faggot bullshit

>>5009300
The whole covered saber teeth thing still exists, just with nimravids now
And megantereon for some reason

>>5009339
megantereon actually makes sense in my opinion. It's fangs aren't as obnoxiously long as smilodon's

I think the whole feathers are basal to archosaur argument is kinda dumb because humans have keratin and we don't have horns like rhinos. So the why would t-rex have feathers just because they had keratin as well

>>5009345
Because they're animals not movie monsters chud

DUDE YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT TREX DIDN'T HAVE A PINK MOHAWK SO IT MUST BE ASSUMED IT DID

>>5008618
>No, I've just seen enough of these threads to know it triggers the worst kind of closeted scaly retards to reply angrily.
So it's okay to make generalisations based on patterns of behaviour? Why do you soi out when we do it to jews or niggers then?
>Inb4 y-you're a schizo
You're the one tilting at scaly shaped windmills bro

>>5009396
Who makes that argument

>>5008535
>woke
FAGGOT!!!!!

>>5009295
KEK

>>5009243
>It makes me want to puke every time
Lol

>>5009102
Feathers are basal to Ornithodira which includes both Dinosaurs and Pterosaurs

>>5009104
You should have mentioned Dilong a basil tyrannosaur with protofeathers

>>5009426
You had to be in the sphere during the 2010's

>>5009161
>There is a veritable cottage industry around paleonerds circlejerking about the dinosaur designs in the films.
This is my biggest pet peeve when it comes to dinosaur autists, I couldn't care less about the power rankings of which Spinosaurus depiction was the strongest or if some shitty Discovery Channel documentary from 2010 was inaccurate but it's all that redditors and autists ever want to talk about. Pic related is an example of what I mean. I only follow content creators that don't focus on pop-culture when it comes to paleontology because of inane and pointless most of this shit is. It's not like it's anything new because I've seen this type of discussion online for almost fifteen years and they always overestimate the significance of paleoart to normies, just like SJWs any time they start going off about "representation."

>>5009345
That's... that's not the argument being made about archosaurs

>>5009486
>big al's death
>unfair
Nigga wut

I just want to know if they had lips or a beak or whatever.

>>5009556
Sounds like it when they say feathers are basal to archosaurs

>>5009592
They had bright red lips that protruded outwards as a sexual display

We have an image of what a T-Rex would look like deep in our brains thanks to evolution. When we see a T-Rex with feathers, our brain thinks it looks wrong, while when we see a T-Rex with scales, we think it looks right, so that's what it really looked like.

>>5009592
>>5009662
They also had huge red baboon asses that they twerked with, likewise as a sexual display

>>5009078
>Muh awesomebros
>Muh chuds
Pfft thanks for outing yourself as a redditor

>>5009587
He probably treats the dinosaurs as if they were people

>>5009556
Why do you type like a faggot?

>>5009728
i'm gay

>>5009731
Sorry to hear that.

I like Carnotaurus :)

>>5008796
This. Since the Paleo community is absolutely infested with obnoxious AGPs and their TRA dicksuckers they've managed to weave their politics and delusions into everything they create. I've come across so much "heckin quirky pride month grand rights!" Dinosaur content this month and in the past it's ridiculous. They use extinct animals as a vehicle for their beliefs, which is the most unscientific thing I can think of. >>5009176
>Artists can draw whatever they want
Except they treat their art like it's the face of paleontology and scientific accuracy and that they are experts in that field. You should see the main paleoart posse on twitter, they are the most smug, pretentious motherfuckers who can barely take criticism and are a perfect example of the dunning kruger effect.
>>5009101
>Pic
Lol this is the same artist who thinks taking artificial hormones can change your pelvis from female shaped to male shaped

>>5006749
>until all possible discussion is exhausted
Implying it hasn't already, and that it would keep people like OP from making more threads

>>5006749
It'll exist so long as the pseudo-intellectuals that recognize a ragebait thread but still choose to spend hours if not days debating in it exist. Because one validates the other to continue acting the way they do.

man it would be so cool if dinosaurs could change their skin color like a chameleon

>>5009100
Ahahahahahahaha. Your cope is hilarious and unhealthy. Exactly the same as when the Cuckstians are trying to prove that their imaginary friend is real.

>>5009838
eh, I reply to feathertroons/scalechuds because I'm bored and their rants are funny to me.

>>5010040
He's real but that's irrelevant here. Doesn't make featherpissers any less schizo regardless. I don't even see why they're trying so hard. Just accept the scales, and be happy. In the end, giant lizards are way cooler than giant birds no matter what anyone says.

>>5010051
> In the end, giant lizards are way cooler than giant birds no matter what anyone says.

Opinion

>>5010052
That one is, sure (although a good one). Though whether they were scaly or feathery is not

>>5010053
You are incorrect dinosaurs in general(and tyrannosaurus) were both.

>>5009969
>>5009971
>>5009972
He draws them without feathers now, you know that right?

>>5009969
>>5009971
>>5009971
O.U.T.D.A.T.E.D.

>>5009303
Lol really?

>>5010289
Yes. I believe it happened in 2017

>>5010104
You're crazy, take your meds.

>>5009137
There's literally not a single evidence of t rex or his close relatives to have any feather-like coverings. Your (and not only your) mental gymnastics with attempts to give it at least some fuzz is unhealthy. As I said earlier - featherfags are exactly like Cuckstians in their delusional obsession with something non-existent.

>>5010394
But he's right

>>5010394

>>5010411
>>5010413
AI-generated images, take your meds you crazy person.

>>5010394

>>5010415

>>5010394
>>5010415

>>5006738 (OP)
Except those are from a T-Rex with mange, while recent fossils from China show a wide range of tyrannosauroids - Guanlong, Yutyrannus, Xiongguanlong, and Zhuchengtyrannus - were all covered in feathers. Scalefags need to seriously let their horror movie murder crocodiles go, and accept that dinosaurs were birds.

>>5007089
---> >>5010424
"Species" column.

>>5010432
New data > old data

>>5009100
Hair is basal to mammalia. As is egg laying and a semi-sprawling posture.

>>5010432
Anon he is very obviously joking

>>5007089
Obviously the yellow pats were feathered

>>5010453
It’s this feathers of the gaps argument that annoys me more than anything. Just take the damn L.

>>5010363
That's hilarious

>>5010453
The non-yellow parts don't represent entire swaths of skin. They represent potential locations a coin sized patch might have existed in, all belonging to different species. You are purposefully misrepresenting data here if you are trying to say all of the non-yellowed areas were definitely scaled on tyrannosaurus rex.

Blue (2) representing 4 species is actual bullshit.

>>5010449
whales still have hair
and we have a lot of derivation before getting to cetacea that makes semi-sprawling posture and egg laying not common; placentals and marsupials outnumbered monotremes from a very early time in mammalia's history
so, you're dumb lol

>>5010410
>There's literally not a single evidence of t rex or his close relatives to have any feather-like coverings.
except for his relatives that had feathers and the fact that we have very little skin samples

>>5010410
>Cuckstians
is fedora tipping coming back in vogue? Christ, I hope not...

>>5010410
So true xister!

>>5010453

>>5009080
That would make him a pachydermist or packy for short.

Only fags think Tyrannosarus dressed like Elton John.

>>5009080
>That's the problem, you guys love assigning motives to people that simply aren't there.
Holy projection batman

>>5010668
The humiliation of the nuatheists has fallen out of the awareness of young people and now the “based tradcath” larpers are suffering their own humiliations due to the faithlessness of their religiosity and the triumph of the pro-lifers has also contributed to Christianity losing the countercultural coolness it had 5 years ago amongst the rootless young. I don’t just expect a nunuatheist wave, but also a wave of neoneopaganism.

>>5010453
I believe it.

>>5010956
*trannies

>>5010424
I usually say there's no such thing as bait on 4chan, but that more applies to OPs, not retarded posts within threads like this one.

>>5010419
>>5010420
Every notice how the least skilled paleoartists are now the most popular? I think the reason engh and witton focus on gore and disinformation is to cover up for their natural lack of artistic talent. Witton in particular just looks like he scribbles with dirty watercolor paintbrushes. His art "style" is offensively low quality.

>>5010104
>Now
Oh so after the backlash? How brave of him. Not after the science proved he's an idiot. Just after the tide turned against featherfags in pop culture. Imagine that.

>>5008796
Still is. In fact it's worse than ever. Every theropodfag is a tranny, a woman or a weird fetishist.

>>5009468
PP didn't happen that long ago. There's a reason These Are Like Real Animals™! is a meme.

>>5009397
The next time you hear this anti-scientific fucking nonsense from a redditard, remind them of Russel's Teapot.

>>5006746
This may surprise you, but Elephants have a normal distribution of hair follicles. "Muh elephants" is not an argument which has ever held any water.

>>5006749
Hopefully as many as we had to put up with from redditbitches and trannies about their feather boa T. rexes. Karma's a bitch, ain't it?

>>5006753
Then it's unfortunate that every paleontologist alive signed onto the anti-scientific featherfag craze, isn't it? Turns out when you fuck around, eventually you find out.

>>5006783
Unfortunately, we don't have the choice. The dominant paleontological culture is antiscience. Go to jewtube and TRY to find even ONE video that is controversial on paleontology. You can't do it. Every single video on the site is "on-message" - i.e. spreading disinformation about dinosaurs. Turns out people like dinosaurs and what they DON'T like is scientists and "influencers" lying about them constantly.

>>5008515
That's because featherfaggotry is propagand meant to sell tabloid-"science" which is what we have now instead of actual science. Thank this jew.

>>5007721
Don't worry, when they do, they'll just grind all the skin off to sell the skull to the highest bidder.

>>5008535
The reason for it is that featherfaggotry is religion, not science. End of discussion. That's why. And that's why featherfaggotry won't die in the face of abundant, overwhelming scientific evidence, can't be disproved and is actually cancering up actual science. It's a cult masquerading as science.

>>5008618
Tyrannosauroidea is not real. It was literally erected to try to paste feathers on T. rex. Nothing from china can be trusted as legit, so the feathered Proceratosaurids are likely also fake and didn't have feathers either.

>>5008829
One day, finally, at long last, every american will realize we were never making it up that the CIA poisoned every sphere of human culture to try to exert total and absolute control over the public. Perhaps TOTALLY BY COINCIDENCE the so-called "dinosaur renaissance" (dinosaur dark ages) began in the 1960s. Don't pay any attention to that decade it doesn't mean anything DON'T LOOK IT UP.

>>5008833
That's probably because it's a bot.

>>5009302
If only it were just him. This is actually a pretty mainstream cope.

>>5008993
Based on what? Yes, we know, paleontology is totally comped at this point, but science still has rules and one of these is not throwing out total bullshit and trying to pass it off as "scientific". I can say your mother "may be" a whore, but that's not science since we have empirical data to prove it unquestionably.

>>5008998
You can dress up your propaganda in sciency sounding language all you want, but at the end of the day you're just Russel's Teapoting yourself to Jupiter.

>>5011196
This fag has nothing to do with it jewsperg

>>5009033
Yeah, because it's chinese and chinese fossils are known to be sus. You just go ahead and make sure you forget to mention that nobody even knows where the fuck Yutyrannus comes from because it's a black market purchase.

>>5010415
That's not ai blind retard

>culture war
This board is so fucking retarded, I'm surprised any of you can wipe your asses

>>5009041
Actualy the idea that T. rex had feathers was always made up propaganda. True fact: the first known depiction of a feathered Tyrannosaur is from the same issue of National Geographic that published the archaeoraptor hoax.

>>5011213
Oh if only. He's literally responsible for the entire replication crisis and lying becoming normal behavior in science to launch careers.

>>5011220
It's not a culture war. It's a war for truth in science. The propagandists are the ones engaging in a culture war to upset the apple cart. We're trying to stop you vermin.

>>5011227
>>/x/ is that way schizo

>>5009042
Big oof. Hey remember that time the Mythbusters tried to disprove the moon landings as a hoax and only proved how easy it would be to fake them?

>>5009052
Why don't they reconstruct living birds like this? Hmmm...

>>5009073
We call it "bad faith argumentation" also known as "lying". Propagandists have to use it because objective reality refutes what they're trying to push, so they have to hope their malice is stronger than your ignorance. If it isn't, they fail and end up discrediting their own propaganda, which is more the case all the time.

>>5009088
Don't engage with it. You're just feeding the disease.

>>5011242
Some living birds look close to this

>>5011244
Are you a fucking leftist politician or something?

For anyone wondering, the reason this thread is such a shitstorm is because of our resident paleoNPC fucking lunatic. You know, the one that's constantly screeching about "paleo schizo" being the thing killing /an/?

For comparison, here's a thread where "paleo schizo" is the main poster: >>5010135

I peaceful discussion about posture in dinosaurs with minimal autistic explosions. Wow, it's almost like the alcoholic fucking the jannies was the problem with /an/ the entire time.

Turns out the alky propagandist was the problem the whole time. Who knew?

>>5011257
Kek
Child throwing a fit because no one believes in his "propaganda" narrative

>>5009005
Whatever you think the reason is, that's probably the reason. Not even being ironic.

>>5009070
I know engaging with an intentional liar is pointless, but as always I do this for the benefit of the lurkers. You're lying. You have always been lying. And what's worse is that you have enough paleontological knowledge to KNOW you're lying. Feathers are not basal to Dinosauria and every paleontologist knows this with 100% certainty. We have a vast array of skin impressions across all taxa of Dinosaurs and they're all scaled except for chinese theropods, two dinosaurs outside of china or mongolia (Archaeopteryx and Ornithomimus) and three cases of mistaken identity (Tianyulong, Psittacosaurus & Kulindadromeus), which are all plant remains. Similarly the "feathers" of Longisquama are also plant remains - likely a fern. They even have a name: Mesenteriophyllum kotschnevii. Not coincidentally, the "feathers" of both Tianyulong & the one Psittacosaur are identical and they come from the same geological formation - the Jehol Group, so it's likely their "feathers" are even the same exact species of plant. At this point, believing in feathers in dinosurs is just active scientific disinformation outside of a very small number of theropods and we now have reason to examine them with a critical eye also.

But that's not even the worst part. We have skin impressions from nearly every group of theropods from Allosaurs to Ceratosaurs to Abelisaurids and they ALL have only scales. Even Concavenator, which you were all so SURE had feathers because of "muh quill knobs" was found to be scaly.

YOU LOST. You can cope, you can seethe, you can dilate. It doesn't matter how you *feel* about the issue. You're wrong and the data is incontrovertible. You made the whole thing up to launch your careers and now you're just trying to cover your own asses.

>>5009075
That's not what "analogy" means, idiot.

>>5009092
Can you name a living vertebrate capable of this sort of integumentary transformation?

>>5009092
Also, you're basing this bait post on the opposite of any positive paleontological evidence.

>>5009101
No Dinosaur had feathers because of "muh seasons". The stupidest part of this non-argument is that there are always dinosaurs with just scales from the same formation and featherfags just handwave them as not important.

>>5009102
Actually we have pretty good evidence that feathers ARE NOT basal to dinosauria. The earliest integumentary impressions we have for dinosaurs are all scales and osteoderms. No feathers found. Btw this is at the BASE of the dinosaur family tree. But then we also find that evidence backed up in all other groups of dinosaurs except exactly one: a small group of mostly chinese theropods. Anything else is people just calling random shit "feathers" to shoehorn a narrative into the science.

>>5009101
I just noticed your image is supposed to be Arizonasaurus. That's not even a Dinosaur.

>>5011283
Also, the feet are wrong (of course) lol.

>>5009104
This has been addressed. They're not feathers and never were.

>>5011285
These look nothing alike

>>5011282
It is widely accepted that scales and protofeathers coexisted and basically all extant theropods ended up being feathered as well. Oviraptors did not come out of nowhere. Birds did not come out of nowhere.

Crypto jews are one kind of cancer
You are a crypto-creationist. Ultimately you are denying the evolution of birds.

>>5009120
>pterosaur pycnofibers
Oh you mean actinofibrils? This has also been covered before.

https://youtu.be/mw7d6Rj_bcU?list=LL&t=1124

So let's review shall we? Featherfaggots (hired by the CIA) sought to fag up T. rex and raptors to make white boys angry and in the end they lost ALL fuzzy coverings for mesozoic reptiles.

Whoops.

>>5009109
Nobody has ever been able to produce feathers in crocs or humans, despite the bullshit papers that have been published on the subject.

They made it up.

>>5011290
>jewtoob conspiracy video
>muh cia
Disregarded

>>5009112

>>5009122
Because he, like all featherfags, is making it up as he goes to justify his original agenda.

>>5009123
Climate has nothing to do with it. If it did, Ostriches would be as scaled as lizards. Your lineage either has feathers or doesn't, and most dinosaurs didn't.

>>5009130
Even mainstream paleontologists have questioned Ornithischian "feathers". A rare moment of sanity for their lot.

>>5011285
How blind are you

>>5011290
>LE CIA IS MAKING THE DINOSAURS GAY
Every single non-autistic adult already thought dinosaurs were gay. You have a narcissistic delusion. Specifically, the delusion that your weird childish obsession with how dinosaurs look is somehow important to the world at large.

>>5009137
I'm impressed you used a more accurate temp for Hell Creek. Typically paleontologist idiots try to claim the average annual temp was like 11-15°C which is just clownishly cold. But again, feathers in dinosaurs has nothing to do with climate. It has to do with inheritance. Mammals have fur at all sizes, even whales, even elephants, even rhinos, because they're mammals and mammals have hair as an inherited trait. Dinosaurs DO NOT. Birds do, and at this point I'd say bird origins are cloudier than ever since there's been so much bullshit and fraud involved in describing their evolution and to this day the first feathered organism (Archaeopteryx), which has fully formed asymmetrical flight feathers is STILL the oldest (aside from like maybe 1 (likely fake) chinese species that is maybe ~1 million years older). We have absolutely no evidence of any transition from a scaly animal to birds. None. There's nothing. It's even worse than the evidence we have for flight evolving in Pterosaurs. We at least have SOMETHING there.

>>5011305
>it's a BANDY
Ah yes, birds are not dinosaurs, because all of the evidence for them being dinosaurs, is totally a CIA conspiracy
>We have absolutely no evidence of any transition from a scaly animal to birds. None.
Shut up you fucking idiot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-avian_dinosaur_species_preserved_with_evidence_of_feathers

>>5011242
There are actual birds who look weirder than that.

"Birds are not dinosaurs" people are working backwards

The jewish creation myth requires that birds were created before the beasts of the land. Therefore, birds must not evolve from dinosaurs.
Also, both jewish creation myths are wildly inaccurate in every single statement they make and are followed by a book that falsely claims that jews were enslaved in egypt and escaped by the skin of their noses because they're totally god's favorite people and the main characters of earth (actual events: the uncles of jews ruled egypt, were universally disliked, were subsequently expelled, and later brought their woes to other canaanites who adopted the victim story as a national myth)

>>5009161
Actually they ARE and that's precisely the problem. And this insistence that it's just paleoartists doing this is propaganda to cover paleontologists' lying assholes. Nearly every single paleontologist that has ever written on the subject has kissed the feathering wall at this point. And several of them are outspoken feather fags like David Hone. Some like Darren Naish have worked on multiple anti-scientific dinosaur projects like PP and are proud to do it. While Mark Witton is an unbelievably shitty paleoartist, believe it or not he's actually a paleontologist too. And this doesn't include all the paleontologists who commission openly anti-scientific feathered dinosaur images for their own papers. And we haven't even talked about china, ground zero for this bullshit, which btw EVERY paleontologist defends for fear of losing access to the latest lucrative career break.

So NO, this is NOT just a paleoartist or pop culture issue. The paleontologists are responsible too.

>Get it into your thick skull, they are not politically motivated, they don't have agendas there is no conspiracy to push feathered dinosaurs.
This is an open and direct lie from a propagandist.

>>5011312
In the end all your ranting amounts to shitting out turds to build up mount bullshit resting on a hidden foundation of diarrhea - specifically, your objectively incorrect belief that the jewish creation myth holds any water.

>>5009288
Cenozoic art has mostly not been fucked up because there's no money to be made on trying to convince people that Smilodon had a chicken wattle. There are just too many living representatives of cenozoic megafaunal groups for any significant target demographic to believe such lies, so it's mostly been left alone.

>>5009300
It was too easy to refute because people have cats with exposed fangs in their fucking living rooms.

>>5009303
Is this just shitposting or do you think this tranny caused a paper to be published to shut him up? Cause if so that's funny as hell.

>>5009448
Ornithodira nor Avemetatarsalia exist. They are made up bullshit. Pterosaurs are only distantly related to Dinosaurs.

>>5009451
Be quiet, david.

>>5011319
It's fake, it's a weird schizo/narcissist delusion this guy carefully crafted so he could pretend he was important on 4chan.

He also repeatedly claims to be a paleontologist and mountaineer but he's actually a 40y/o loser that lives with his mom in nowhere, colorado and posts photos of her tax bill to pretend he's rich

Are there any theories about the actual feathers when it comes to feathered dinosaurs? Like how complex could the display structures be, etc. A T-Rex sized peacock would need gigantic feathers, but could feathers even grow to that size structurally? Or would the size issue limit dinosaurs to just 'regular' feathers?

>>5011247
>>5011309
>Literally post an very badly doctored image of a house sparrow
>B-b-but birds DO look like that
Never change, featherniggers. Most birds do not look like this, but for some reason ALL dinosaurs did? Come the fuck off it, queers.

>>5011330
>Most birds do not look like this, but for some reason ALL dinosaurs did?
Why do you make up things people don't say to then argue against? The one you called a doctored image is Wilson's Bird of Paradise.

>>5011322
Didnt this exact same idiot get banned from the morrison museum

>>5011288
>U CREATIONIST
I'm not the one living in a space ship shaped like a fucking teapot. Featherfags have FAR more in common with creationists than anybody skeptical of the mainstream does.

>>5011294
The video is a talk by David Unwin. He's a paleontologist. Or does his word not count now since he disagrees with you. He's one of the world's leading experts on Pterosaurs - and I'm not just saying that. He actually is. And after thorough examination of the evidence, he's convinced they didn't have pycnofibers. Of course everyone else handwaved this because they didn't like it.

>>5011307
>it's a BANDY
What?

>that list
I also have a list. It's basically an annotated version of your list.

>>5011347
>china is feathering the dinosaurs to turn me gay because uhhhh people depend on utahraptor for masculinity
no its because you have a need for birds not to evolve from dinosaurs in order to fulfill the book of genesis

>>5011313
You're right. It no longer matters what is said here because you lost. The die is already cast and it's over for your propaganda on the subject. Nobody believes you anymore and only "authorities" are pushing your bullshit at this point like state sponsored jewtube videos. Like I said, good luck finding a SINGLE VIDEO on all of jewtube that broaches even the slightest skepticism on any of the myriad of blatantly nonsensical en vogue dinosaur theories. The most you can find is "actually T. rex didn't have feathers" because that's finally becoming accepted in mainstream circles, when we fucking knew that the whole time.

But one day you propagandists will learn that your media efforts and what the public actually accepts are opposites and people have had enough from scientists lying to them to advance their own careers. So go ahead, bury this thread in cat gore or zoophilia or just argumentative bot bleeping. Nobody cares anymore.

>>5011347
No one trusts claims made by a creationist sinophobe who thinks palm bark looks like feathers sorry

>>5011350
Nigger you deny fossil evidence on the sole basis of disliking the country it comes from and think the CIA invented feathered dinosaurs. You are drooling at the notion of adding "to disprove the bible" but you won’t link ICR or answers in genesis when people are looking.

>>5011322
>>5011336
I'm pretty sure the raving alcoholic anti-cat featherfaggot and this "morrison bro" spook he keeps bringing up are the same person and he keeps bringing him up to try to cover up the fact that it's him because he accidentally doxxed himself.

>>5011332
Is this 2005? Do you think that cherry picking arguments is a valid debate tactic? Honestly the behavior of featherfags and its similarity to creationist tactics is fucking bewildering. Haven't seen gish galloping yet, but I suspect that's because most of you have fewer IQ points than the average used car salesman preacher.

And the doctored image is the one I posted, you fucking retard.

>>5011355
The funniest part is no one real has ever been anti-cat, unless you think just not thinking cats are better than dogs and arent genius super animals is anti-cat. Its just him when he has his episodes. His cat gore collection rivals his dog rape collection. Its all him. You can tell, because he cant sustain more than one topic at a time. When dogredditor schizo is posting paleoschizo and cat gore fag arent. When paleoschizo is posting dogredditor schizo isnt.

Also he sometimes leaks and forgets which one he’s meant to be lol

>>5011354
Lying won't save you. Sorry. Everyone already knows about the rampant fraud going on in the chinese dragon bone trade. This isn't 1998. You can't get away with the same bullshit anymore. Grow up.

>>5011357
>get called a creationist specifically because you made the creationist cope claim that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs (required by genesis creation order)
>start calling everyone else a creationist to cope
lmao

>>5011358
This entire board was unusable for about 3 years because it was being spammed so hard with cat gore.

>>5011359
>scientific evidence i dont like is fake BECAUSE I SAID THE WALLS ARE CLOSING IN
The only people who agree with you are young earth creationists. I wonder why that is?

>>5011273
hello paleoschizo
keep schizocoping

>>5011361
This literally never happened. What did happen is you showed up in 2020 and started the cat website dogfucker thing, about the same time totallynotyou started posting untold amounts of bestiality porn right in time with the pro cat nut losing all his arguments.

No point in telling you though, this is for everyone else.

>>5011360
The difference, friend bot, is that you're literally using creationist arguments.

1: The feathers of the gaps was literally named after a creationist argument - the God of the Gaps. Any gap in your argument means I can insert god/feathers there, and therefore you're wrong.

2. Russell's Teapot has to constantly be invoked with you morons because you don't seem to understand how science works and just think you can claim whatever bullshit you want and that makes it science unless someone can disprove your headcannon.

3: Cherrypicking (I thought we were over this as a debate tactic, but here we are). We USE the fossil evidence. It's YOUR side that denies it, handwaves it away and picks the specific minority examples to back up your bullshit, ignoring the majority of evidence that proves you wrong.

Like I said the only creationist tactic you don't use is gish galloping because I think your kind are mostly dumber than literal evangelical preachers.

>>5011364
paleoschizo did spam cat gore but for several days so he could claim his boogeyman was real

>>5011365
>feathers of the basal clade -feather chads
>if i pretend this massive region was scaled instead of a 1/4" region you are silly! -you, a gay furry

>>5011361
What time period? I’ve been posting here for 12 years or so and don’t remember anyone gore spamming willy-nilly. There was a time when people would gorepost if someone started a console war thread, but the bans have been pretty quick and merciless for for a while now.

>>5011364
Lying about the past doesn't change the past, especially since you're the one that was doing it.

>>5011368
He purposefully misremembered the 3 days he spammed coyote/cat gore.

Tell him cats belong indoors and dont control pests 3 times if you want a show

>>5011367
God you deserve your life. You're the slimiest faggot 4chan has ever hosted. I'm genuinely glad your life turned out the way it did.

>>5011371
>>5011369
Who do you think you’re talking to? Give us a general description

Is it yourself?

>>5011318
What was the point of even coming up with it?

I see we are in the "it never happened" phase

>>5011381
Some dumb paleoartist thought there was a potential to grift with it. They dabbed their feet in the water and found there was no money there because it wasn't a theropod.

>>5011324
They would’ve looked like ratites for the most part.

>>5011386
There really never was cat gore spam

There have been several concerted attempts to force mods to delete /dog/, which culminated in mods deleting /kot/ for two days

>>5011199
>>5011200
>it's still getting replies after the anon admitted they were baiting

>>5011180
I think Mark is allright when he doesn't draw retarded fucking reconstructions. Brian engh's art is fucking terrible

>>5011347
>ornithomimus: it LOOKS weird according to me because I need to justify my retardation. It can’t be real because it directly contradicts my ideas
lol the cope

>>5011232
I see you didn’t watch the episode

>>5011223
All of this featherfag nonsense begins and ends with the archeoraptor hoax. Scientists reacted to archaeopteryx with "Oh cool, the first bird" with zero implications for any other dinosaur, but with archeoraptor they REALLY pushed hard for "all dinosaurs had feathers" and nobody bought it until a new generation of redditfags started parroting "the science".

bros what if some of them had feathers and others didnt

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosaurs-among-us/feathers
Facts dont care about your feelings
More accurate dinosaurs have no bearing on "white boys". There are no "propagandists" here. White boys like monster movies, guns and engineering not paleontology. And the only propaganda is your mindless sinophobia.

>>5012294
That is indeed the case. And T. rex is one of the ones who didn't

>>5011288
>It is widely accepted that scales and protofeathers coexisted
You're right, it is widely accepted. Too bad it's 100% wrong and based on exactly 0 actual fossil evidence.

>>5011302
The real question is did the CIA make you a tranny or did you start that way? Nature or Nurture?

>>5011351
Um, this post is phobic and ist. Do better sweaty.

How the fuck is society still stuck on this 1960s hippie bullshit?

>>5012101
Witton needs to clean his fucking paintbrush.

>>5012103
Well here it is. People can make their own mind up as to how it looks. Obviously the shills will just say everything is real, including chinese hoaxes that have been caught and chastised right in the literature like the Psittacosaur "nanny".

>>5012104
I watched the literal fucking webm I just posted. Bruh why do shills have such low IQs?

>>5012315
>There are no "propagandists" here.
Yet you're posting.

>>5012315
>Even sauropods like The Titanosaur may have had some insubstantial feathers
These people are just circus clowns at this point.

>>5012375
>noooo scientific accuracy is propaganda! STOP DEBUNKING MY CHILDHOOD TOYS!
Grow up already

why are trex feet so errotic

>>5012380
>NOOOO!!! LYING AND SPREADING ACTUAL DISINFORMATION IS SCIENCE!!! WHY WON'T YOU JUST TRUST THE EXPERTS!!?!!?!?
Unlike you're retarded ass, I can READ, so I read the actual papers the jewtube videos you watch are based on, but more importantly I LOOK at the fossils to see if the researchers are making shit up (spoilers: they are).

Nobody has ever found feathers before Archaeopteryx.
Nobody has ever found ANY evidence of feathers in a stem dinosaur, or a stem archosaur or any reptile before Archaeopteryx.
T. rex doesn't and never has had feathers.
You lost.
Cope.
Seethe.
Dilate.
Die early.

>>5009137
Anon, respect yourself. You know featherfags weren't saying "it only had sparse feathers".
They talked about T.rex being almost fully feathered.

>>5012473
No one said that.

>>5012477
You're either too young to remember or just are arguing in bad faith. There are several pictures of almost fully feathered T.rex that came from that area posted in this thread.

But anyway, I accept your concession : if T.rex were to have feather, they would be almost unnoticeable because they would be so sparse.

>>5012483
>artists make shitty speculative art

Holy fucking shit! it must be a day ending in Y!

>>5012665
Your concession already has been accepted.

>>5012665
Why are you still using this excuse when it's been exposed as raw propaganda repeatedly?

>>5012871
because you are an unhinged schizo lunatic who thinks big paleo is out to put feathers on dinosaurs because politics.

>>5012871
>it's been exposed as raw propaganda repeatedly?
Let's see it.

>>5013289
his 'evidence' is all feathers are palm fronds...