>>5010135 (OP)
Unlikely, though Therizinosaurs would have damn near had to stand in a reclining pose for their body weight distribution to make any sense in our real actual world of physics.

>>5010153
What a bizarre fucking animal

>>5010153
There is no complete therizinosaurus skeleton. None. We don't know what it looked like. Nada. Everything except its arms is a composite guess from multiple related species.

>if we attach a gibbon skull, human legs and gorilla arms to a chimpanzee it doesnt make perfect sense

>>5010162
I predict Therizinosaurus will be the next Spinosaurus. More material will be found and it will look nothing like we have been reconstructing it

>>5010162
Correct, and I wonder if the old Prosauropod-like idea was right all along. Maybe these are actually quadrupeds similar to Chalicotheres.

>>5010163
Hopefully it's the opposite because the current Spino is clearly less accurate than the old one.

>>5010153
This shit nearly looks quadrupedal

>>5010172
Physically it basically would have to be.

>>5010166
unless you're a time traveller you have no way of knowing that.

>>5010184
It looks stupid. Our senses tell us when something is wrong. No, I don't care, reddit. Shut the fuck up.

>>5010184
It's legs are not physically able to support it's body

>>5010135 (OP)
>>5010153
It's not that out of the ordinary. If you look at modern day birds, when they're standing still, they have this diagonal-ish, upright pose.

>>5010431
birds are not a good model because there only a few kilograms not 7-9 tons.

>>5010270
And?

>>5010431
>>5010550
You're both wrong. Physics still applies. The center of mass of a biped has to occur over the feet if it has any intention of standing up for any length of time. This is a basic law of physics and Dinosaurs don't get to break it just because "uh! you can't prove it wasn't like that!" That's not science.

>>5010621
Keep in mind this image is *slightly* inaccurate as the tail feathers carry basically no weight but the algorithm can't distinguish that. This doesn't apply to Dinosaurs, who had very muscular, heavy tails. Remember, muscle is not light, nor is bone - no, not even your precious helium-filled Sauropod bone.

>>5010628
Here is a version with the parts removed that basically contribute no weight to the animal. You'll notice the center of mass is DIRECTLY over the center of the feet. Again, we can't pull this trick with Dinosaurs because fleshy tails are heavy, especially the specific configuration of tail muscles Dinosaurs had since their caudofemoralis was used to move their legs and was massive.

Birds are dinosaurs confirmed

>>5010621
>>5010632
What about the "Jurassic Park posture?" Which is, tail held horizontally, body held up a bit diagonally. (Pic related)

>>5010838
I'm not certain about that. That's so subtle it might be difficult to detect in the fossil record.

>>5010838
I will say though, given the positioning of the leg muscles, I don't think an erect stance is very likely as it would require a rotation of the ilia.

>>5010431
Good lord I just realized /an/ posters are fucking pajeets too.

>>5010901
...? Dude, it's just a bird

>>5010981
Too late now. You already exposed yourself.

>>5011041
Tf are you even talking about?

>>5011053
Be quiet.

Where's the center of mass on a top-heavy bird like the Hawfinch? I'm just curious as it has odd proportions.

>>5011062
A better example of the top-heavy look it has.

>>5011063
It was hard to find a good image of the animal in profile view just standing on the ground, but I did about the best I could. You'll notice the center of gravity is still in a pretty reasonable place, despite the issues. Theoretically, this should work the same for any terrestrial vertebrate. Obviously it would work differently for something like a worm or centipede since they're more complicated.

>>5011067
So when you see shit like THIS, you know something is very wrong. Pretty much all Mamenchisaurs have their cog above their forelimbs or even IN FRONT OF THEM. This is physically impossible and it means that something fishy is going on with the group. Since they're from china, it's likely they've all been heavily doctored - probably to score a superlative claim as a form of what I call "science nationalism" - in this case "dinosaur with longest neck". "Science nationalism" btw, is a term I've coined for shit that third worlders pull - mostly chinks, spics and pajeets where they make shit up and publish false papers to try to get their country "on the map" so to speak. Chilesaurus was a product of science nationalism and is clearly a hoax composed apparently mostly of juvenile Mussaurus remains. Paleontology is the only field I'm aware of where fraud of this kind tends to regularly be associated with famous names in the field. In the case of china it's typically Xu Xing. In the case of South America, it's typically Martin Ezcurra, for india it tends to be Sankar Chatterjee (though he's located in america). Chatterjee in particular is infamous for his chimeras, yet he never has trouble finding work.

>>5011062
Out of curiosity I did this image too. Same basic results. For birds you would have to pluck the animal bald to get accurate results, but these quick estimations are pretty accurate still. The algorithm doesn't have much difficulty because weight balancing is a pretty basic function of our physical universe and the visual balance is typically very close to the actual mass balance. Obviously there are exceptions such as very heavy structures or very light ones, hence the tail feather removal for the birds.

>>5011058
Schizo

>Post irrefutable proof of fraud
>YOU'RE A SCHIZO bots appear
Like clockwork.

>>5011071
>>5010431
So how tall would a Rex have been at the head? Same as its hip height of 13 feet? 15 feet (taking the size of its head into account)? Maybe even 17-18 feet?

>>5011076
Probably a bit taller. The neck was likely raised. More like this. You know, the more I look at these various models, the more I feel like a slightly erect pose makes more sense, though I think the JP example might be too extreme.

>>5011081
Would 16 feet tall at the head be a reasonable estimate for a Rex that's 13 foot tall at the hips?

>>5011083
I'm not sure about exact measurements. I don't actually care about theropods. Whatever the hip height is estimated at measure from there. The head was almost certainly higher as that's normal for terrestrial animals.

>>5011071
It makes sense as finches are arboreal, not ground walking birds, so the upright posture having a central center of mass vs the top-heavy standing pose better suits them being on slanted and vertical branches. I suppose from this we could say small therapods that might have had some tree-dwelling lifestyles would have had or be able to comfortably stand in, a more upright posture?

>>5011093
Birds stand more vertically because they've lost their tails though. So it's unlikely dinosaurs stood like this. Their legs are oriented differently than theropods and they stand in a sort of weird sitting pose.

>>5011098
Though this chick-kun stands horizontal like T. rex.

>>5011103
When chickens run you can see the theropod body plan in motion. Even more so than Ostriches as they are specialized.

T. Rex's tail was heavy, but to counterbalance its very heavy head, and we don't actually know how heavy the tail was except for the bone part. did it have a skinny whip tail? possibly.

>>5010205
Imagine being so retarded you can't tell you're retarded

>>5011107
>did it have a skinny whip tail? possibly.
no, you can tell how a tail is built based on the bones

>>5011107
That's simply not correct.

>>5010270
A study has already been done on this, the center of mass for Spinosaurus would have allowed it to walk

A dinosaur thread on /an/ that hasn't immediately gone to shit? Surprising

>>5011228
That's because it hasn't been invaded by lunatic propagandists yet.

Yet.

>>5011239
>propagandists
Never mind

>>5011241
>Wow this cake is good, what did you do different?
>I didn't back turds into it like everyone else does
>*Spits out cake, disgusted*...gross

>>5011248
There is literally a board for this shit >>>/x/

>>5011253
Funny how nobody had any issues until you showed up.

>>5011259
Showed up? You're the newfag on this board, I haven't seen anything like this shit before you got here

>>5011262
I'm the majority poster in this thread. It took you entering it to try to start a flame war. And I'm nipping it in the bud right now.

>>5011226
What sort of gait did it have? Is there a comparable modern species?

>>5011304
Even better, animate it so we can all laugh at it.

>>5011327
That's why I asked for a comparative modern species. Some things can look ridiculous in animation but make sense on the far more complex actual living body.

>>5011329
Believe me, the nu-Spinosaurus doesn't look any better animated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZzJgGHmAB4

>>5011373
pff everyone knows real spinosaurus locomotion involved it supporting its weight through a dead fish which it had to carry everywhere

>>5011390
That's unironically more believable than the current theory. Imagine actually believing that a crocodile the size of a bus was walking on its hind legs and holding its long ass tail off the ground at all times.

>>5011373
Yeah so I asked for a modern comparative species, I don't care much for cgi

>>5011395
There is nothing like it because nu-Spino is made up horseshit. A lot of people don't understand you have to understand a paleontologist's motivations for publishing something to get at the truth. Jack Horner's "scavenger rex" was actually an intentional shittake and he's admitted he had the T. rex killed by the Spino in JP III because he was sick of the obsessing over it which is an absolutely flawless reason for what he did and praise him for it, despite it being obviously wrong. Ibrihimimimim is a typical theropodfag and was butthurt about the same clip, so he turned Spinosaurus into a clown. This is not acceptable because it means he's a dumb pussy.

>>5011394
My theory is that the specimen whose legs they found just had stuntet legs.

>>5011402
My theory is simpler: they're just lying.

>>5011226
The center of mass is the least of it's worries, those toothpick legs would've snapped under it's weight

>>5011373
To be fair the nu-WWD shit is just terribly animated all around

>>5011397
Who cares about Jurassic Park.

>>5011373
>haha fakeout, it was its mother all along
>I bet you couldn't tell that when it had the exact same body shape and was acting like a (poorly animated) child
Oh, sorry, the actual subversion is that it's a single father!

I think the last dino piece I saw, which might also have been BBC, involved some herd dinos fending off some kind of velociraptor to protect their poor defenceless widdle baby. The velociraptors pretended they could attack large, leathery, spiked beasts before one lunged at a head, was vaguely slapped by said head, and then the director told all the velociraptors to run away in unison. Hooray! The baby was saved! I'm glad velociraptors can subsist on air and fuzzy feelings!

I always thought dinosaurs were for boys, turns out they're now for girls.

>>5011574
Can't find the actual clip, didn't realise it was current WWD, thought it was from some older series
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka1jcfmtOWg
>pack hunter flips a giant armoured herbivore to reveal the delicious soft underbelly, just like how a crow devours a tortoise
>alpha disregards the fresh kill and follows through with the sigma male grind, immediately going to solo a single armoured cow
I assume in the show it continued with the Gastonia killing the alpha.

Sincerely feminised for how this whole thing disregards the young and the lame being the most vulnerable targets because it's toooo scaaaary and carnivores are toooo meeeean.

>>5011574
>>5011578
>seething because a theoretical extinct birdreptile cartoon isn't metal enough for you
Do you also believe a theoretical extinct birdreptile is somehow the foundation of white masculinity?

>>5011505
Sorry sweaty we have to copy PP. Small independent government run media operation. Please understand.

>>5011574
>>5011578
Yeah, the disneyfication of dinosaurs in media has been pretty fucking retarded lately, but just adding gore isn't the solution. Instead of paying pajeets to spam online "These are like real animals!", they could actually make them act and look like real animals, which apparently I have to keep reminding /an/ aren't just swimming in other animals' intestines 24/7.

It's pretty sad that if you want to see accurate recreations of dinosaurs you have to go to video games. I honestly think movies and tv are over as a medium. The various federal agencies have simply whored them out too many times as propaganda outlets and nobody watches them anymore. And it's hard to police video games because a lot of the most accurate dinosaur models in vidja are player made mods.

>>5011584
Anon, I expect a nature documentary to show nature.
I just pointed out a fictional documentary having a subversion of a female role in nature being taken up by the male, and the subversion that the safest animals from predators are the babies, have more to do with current human societal norms, than NATURE.

Look at the comments, "Ohhh look daddy is taking care of the kids! So cute!", you can imagine they were fooled by the scary music in the first half and would absolutely love it if the narrator said "Uh oh, he's got his airpods in! This little idiot doesn't know he's gonna be literally eated fr fr!"

>>5011591
>but just adding gore isn't the solution.
I don't want gore even if I know they cut away in the current stuff because the budget can't handle it. I just want the cycle of nature to be depicted.

>>5011591
Samefag

>>5011593
>a nature documentary
It is by definition not a documentary because living dinosaur behavior is completely speculative. Dinosaur movies are 100% pure entertainment. The facts are minimal. 90%+ of the content is "based off napkin logic i think its like they would-".

A nature documentary about dinosaurs would be about the paleontological process.

>>5011584
Not all men, just their own. It's a very particular form of schizo.

>>5011607
this particular "scary dinosaurs ARE my manhood" schizo has also repeatedly admitting to being gay (and a bottom) mind you

>>5011614
Shit my ESL is showing, its too late, its over, they're going to realize im chinese
外邦人知道! 把它关掉!

>>5011614
forgot to add that I love sucking dick and think dinosaurs should too. I love gay dinosaurs and only fragile stale pale males, who are secretly gay and need their eggs cracked, think otherwise.

>>5011603
>It's not real
>it's entertainment
>it's speculative
>it doesn't matter!
If it doesn't matter then not only why can't the dinosaurs drive a 2021 BMW 5 Series 430i with optional heated seating, why are you upset that I'm pointing out it's bad?
Surely you should either be on my side or be apathetic when someone criticises entertaining slop, unless you think it's good and right. Which is why your first argument was racism and sexism: only a white male could have a dissenting opinion.

>>5011618
>If it's speculative why not make it absurd
Because entertainment is still subject to suspension of disbelief even when everything going on has 0 relation to reality.

>keeps bringing up muh white males
The only racist thing here is your retarded idea that white men somehow depend on dinosaurs to have masculinity and how scary dinosaurs look to you somehow affects white culture. The BBC cuck shit has wormed its way into your brain. Dinosaurs are a stereotypical interest for weenie children that shuffle around, wear glasses, and dont play sports. The jews actually want you to think they have some bearing on masculinity because then you humiliate yourself in earnest.

White boys like sports cars, monster trucks, guns, archery, hunting, construction, soldiers, cowboys, rockets, fighter jets, etc. Dinosaurs are not a masculine interest. It's escapist and inherently passive. Fantasizing about the past.

>>5011620
>Dinosaurs are not a masculine interest. It's escapist and inherently passive
ding ding ding

dinosaur fakeumentaries are gay because the dinosaur obsessed audience is gay. being into dinosaurs is a cop out. it's not a conspiracy to change something. it's a logical response to the way the thing is.
>i want to like a cool animal
>should i be into wolves? lions? bears? maybe even take a step down to horses?
>no then i will eventually be expected to take a risk and interact with those and thats scary
>i'll just fantasize about dragons yeah that's kinda the same
>-skinny dweebs that play magic the gathering and pokemon all day

>>5011620
>white men
>masculinity
>white culture
>BBC cuck shit
>jews
>masculinity
>White boys
>masculine
You point out that your suspension of disbelief failed to be suspended because a show decided fictional animals don't act naturally and then someone from /pol/ jumps down your throat and tells you that you're too white to enjoy it.

I said that the following is feminine, socially human, and bad for a show with the pretence that it's about nature:
>male acting in a female role
>predators are incapable of picking off the weak (babies)
I said that the following is sigma male, i.e. bad, again for a pretence of displaying nature:
>pack hunter leader going solo + ignoring food
I said that the following is straight up bad and not entertaining except to manchildren and womanchildren:
>scripted subversion; oh no he's gonna eat it! Dramatic music! Oh wait that's a baby and parent, my mistake!

Your response has gone from:
>you're white! And male!
to
>it's fiction! Therefore meaningless! Therefore inviolable! Ignore this fallacy!
back to
>you're white! And male!
Why are you defending this? Do you want to post your wrist so we can end this argument with your racial obsession? I sincerely hope you know that BBC stands for British Broadcasting Corporation.

>>5011593
No you don't. Like most retarded americans, you think death IS the cycle of life. You don't know shit about ecology. And frankly I'm tired of this reddit tier "koalas and pandas are bad at evolution, there's no such thing as a herbivore" opinion on the topic.

>>5011591 (You)
>Samefag
You only linked to one post, dummy.

>>5011614
Well that humbling didn't last long, did it, which is why you deserve it as often as possible. Stop claiming people are doing things they're not. Dishonesty of this sort is extremely feminine.

I mean, it was a theropod thread. The way this turned out was inevitable because all theropodfags are homosexuals and trannies with severe behavioral issues.

>>5011629
>the cycle of life has nothing to do with death
Evolution is predicated on birth and death. Without death, genes would remain the same.
Herbivores kill plants to survive.
Carnivores kill other animals.
Omnivores kill both.
Some plants kill other plants, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes because their existence would be short lived if they didn't. You can even look at trees killing off their own seedlings if they fall too close to the tree.

Pandas are a bad evolution and wouldn't survive an extinction event. Arguably the only animals good at evolution are either soft and fluffy pet candidates (canines, felines) or perfect scavengers that can eat anything and reproduce before a bad diet kills them (avians, rodentia) or creatures that live in an environment humans will never visit (deep sea).


Are you a contrarian by nature or by nurture?

>>5011629
>koalas and pandas are bad at evolution
they literally are, theyre being threatened by urbanization, unlike a lot of animals, evolution inevitability leads to dead ends

>>5011637
I love when a filthy pleb tries to tell an ecologist how the cycle of life operates.

>>5011638
Reddit is elsewhere...oh wait, this is a blue board. Carry on.

>>5011640
>I'm an ecologist
Then why are you here? Just to suffer?

>>5011645
Aren't we all?

>>5011640
>an ecologist

>>5011394
i'm 100% convinced nu-spinosaurus lived almost all the time in the water like grebes do
with the ridiculous tail it has, it must be the only logical conclusion

>>5010135 (OP)
>>5011633
>"Oh hey I wonder how that thread I made about speculating over the posture of dinosaurs is going right now."
>Comes back
>anons arguing about BBC and cuckoldry

>>5011574
I'm not mentally ill enough to even try to understand what this post is trying to communicate

>>5011593
>the subversion that the safest animals from predators are the babies
But Prehistoric Planet has babies being eaten alive on screen constantly and the staunch defendes of hyperborea told me it was globohomo demoralization subversive anti white propaganda?

>>5011742
Literally every single episode. The faggots that made PP made sure that in EVERY SINGLE EPISODE a baby dinosaur got eaten. Think about how mentally ill you have to be to push that that hard. These are the "experts" we're supposed to trust.

>>5011745
That's nature, babies are walking food and only a small part of the clutch ever makes it past the first week
Do you cry everytime a falcon rips a baby bird out of it's nest?

>>5011746
No it isn't faggot. Now stop posting that over and over again, you furnigger. There is no such thing as a true carnivore. Lions eat watermelons and koalas will be around when you're foul species is extinct.

>>5011739
You could try not responding to my post over and over again. You're not normal.

>>5011742
to be fair prehistoric planet did a lot of lazy stuff like taking existing real animals and using them as a "skin" for the dinos, like with I think it was mononykus being just a barn owl.

It's obvious dinosaurs were just big lumbering tripods

>>5010431
Birds don't have a tail and their leg anatomy is extremely derived compared to non avian theropods. For locomotion and movement, they're not a good reference model